Ghost Rides Rocking Horse (Video)

reply to post by phantomDX

---

I did not insist anything else was contradictory. Maybe you are getting my post mixed up with someone else's?



Feel free to address that.



That almost made sense.... almost. But alas, it makes no difference as I have run out of ENDURANCE, and henceforth will no longer respond to any of your posts directed at me.

reply to post by Teebs

---

My apologies for the mix up. I'm trying to respond to everyone and address each comment so as not to seem that I'm avoiding any aspects of the debate. Since each of you have different complaints it's a daunting task keeping up.

No response expected.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by phantomDX]

See told ya I'm playing catch up.

Teebs I know you said you weren't replying but you were the RIGHT person.




If you can't even comprehend your own posts why would I have ever thought you might with mine.

reply to phantomDX
Well she has the right to ignore anyone she wants to really, but I think it was just your general tone in the first few posts and the few other people thinking we are all the same one person, but whats done is done lets move on now.

Im used to internet forums and the general attitudes and such that go along with it, so i will still respond to questions if I have that information and havent previously posted an answer to the question.

To all the video talk how about we all agree the youtube video isnt the best possible because even the untrained eye can tell that the dvd version is better, so if my dad gets a better version ill post it via this forum instead of youtube so we can have a slightly better version.

reply to post by phantomDX

---

It seems you are using extremely strict industry definitions for words like 'quality' and 'degradation'. As I stated before I'm not a video expert so was using these words in their more commonly used sense.

The fact is you did state



which to me and others sounds like you were claiming there would be no point in trying to view any other version of the video other than the one already loaded to youtube.

Even if artefacts and degradation are different things, I'd still like to see a version of the video without the artefacts.

I might should have made clearer what I meant.

I wasn't saying that the youtube video was the best quality. I was saying that looking at the youtube video I could tell by the lighting of the vid, the color saturation and the over all pixel information, that the original video was of such low quality, not an insult just indicative of the era and format, to offer any new clues.

The artifacts present that were produced during digitization were not from a shoddy compression process but were from the bad lighting. To see this at work notice on the video how the pixel blocks are enlarged and are uniform covering the entire scene. When there is less light than needed there is no clear line or definition between pixel information and the compression process has to basically piece the video together like a puzzle. You can get rid of those blocks with less compression or a lossless process but it will not provide extra information. The artifacts are there but not hiding anything. You will just get a clearer picture of the same thing you have seen.

I'm going to intercept what I know someone will think they have read into the above.....

Yes, technically compression made the artifacts but not because of compression it's self but from the lack of good information from the original source. As I stated introduce bright light to the video and those artifacts vanish. Had the video been brightly lit and from a high quality source and bad compression was applied then you would have saw a totally different type of artifact.

What some have gone around claiming by using a generalization of the term compression is that compression is inherently bad. They even acted insulted that I would say other wise. Common sense would tell most that what they believed compression was could not be right. We couldn't have HD if compression was bad. It would be like spending years perfecting a beautiful wine glass when you can't even produce a decent wine. Most of what they were saying related to compression was from the early days of digital video when there were not any broadcast quality codecs. That was 15 some odd years ago.

Just to show that I'm still here while I wait for the conclusion.
Yes you DO have adapters for 8mm. At my place of work we used to have an 8mm video camera and an adapter for playback on an ordinary VHS vcr.
The adaptor was a VHS sized tape box with a built in power supply (batteries) and it was inserted into the slot in the vcr as if it was any other tape.

You would be more than welcome to send a copy of the relevant dvd-file to me.

Ayath The Loafer AKA HolgerTheDane

Or even better send a copy of the dvd to a post office near my location.

I have the equipment to transfer the video into different formats and even into formats that are almost lossless. Also I have web-server capacity at my disposal so that you can have the original file hosted without any extra loss of quality. I'll host it "as is".

Ok thanks for the clarification. It seems we went round the houses a bit. One of the problems with forum discussions - it's not always easy to see how other people may interpret your words



That's all I'm asking for.

No my friend they do not. You have your information confused. 8mm physically cannot work with a vhs vcr. The heads of 8mm and vhs read the tapes at different angles making it impossible. I haven't a clue as to what you might be thinking of.

Just wanted to add.......if you worked in production and used a 8mm camera then it would have been a lot easier to use the camera for playback or have a 8mm editing deck. I know not of one production house that would risk their equipment with an adapter of any kind much less one with a power source that could leak an electrical charge and destroy the heads or cause a burnout. Of course there is no such adapter I just wanted to stress just how dangerous it would have been if there were.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by phantomDX]

reply to post by MarrsAttax

---

Yeah that one is on me.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane

---

I was going to post the technical info from a digital film forum I moderate but the last time I included tech specs people ignored them so......

Here is a excerpt from wikipedia on vid8,8mm,hi8 and digital8. Which all are recorded using the same diagonal striping.




Also my point about the low quality of 8mm and the distortion seen at the bottom of the vid.




[edit on 14-3-2009 by phantomDX]

Right there - I hate admitting to be wrong. I checked with my collegue. It turnede out to be true with the adaptor but it wasn't for 8mm.

Sorry about that.

I simply have to admit to getting older and have these memory slips.



[edit on 14.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

[edit on 14.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

It truly is amazing and I thank you for sharing it with us. There are so many interesting things about this video. (First being your nephew was a totally cute little bugger!) It seems to me to be apparent the movement is coming from the front of the horse (i.e. as if you stood in front of the horse, grabbed one of the handlebars and started rocking it while standing in front of it). I never see any expansion of springs (i.e. the horse doesn't lower as if there is a weight getting on it). At one point the movement is strong enough that you see the back of the frame slightly lift off the floor!

There seems to be several instances in the video where there is extremely interesting distortions of the audio. In particular, closer to the end of the video it sounds almost like a number of voices - it's actually quite creepy sounding!

Thanks again for sharing this! Best in class!

reply to post by HolgerTheDane

---

It happens man. I didn't mean to be so harsh with my rebuttal. I've been contacted over the years by people who have come up with some really crazy homemade gadgets for all aspects of video editing. While most were intriguing and really great ways for someone without the money to get quasi pro results, they sometimes couldn't understand that their inventions only had merit in the no budget/low budget realm. There were far better ways to do it albeit expensive.

My point is.....it would not have surprised me that someone at your work might have tried to do just that it would not have worked but editors and vid techs can be a crafty bunch at times.

I don't mind answering any video tech or production questions or statements but I would like to point out that we are running the risk of completely getting off topic the further we get into it.

It was quite in its place really.


To get things clarified (running the risk)

At my work we lent out video equipment to kindergartens and schools.
We had 8mm cameras and VHS-C (a compact VHS cassette camera).

They were encuraged to buy their own tapes and as the didn't have a VHS-C player in the schools and kindergartens we also lent out adaptors. And they were indeed for the VHS-C cassettes and YES they did have batteries for the tape guide mechanism inside.

motorized adaptor


[edit on 15.3.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

reply to post by HolgerTheDane

---

Yep they do have batteries. But there is a big difference between the function of a vhs=c adapter with it's shielded batteries and the term "power source" in the context that you used. Vhs-c adapters did not need the batteries as was apparent by the replacement of those that did with non motorized versions.

reply to post by 7even

---

I listened to the video 5 times and it sounded like the lady called someone a liar from inside the next room. It didn't sound as if it was in the same room as the rocking horse.