[macbain80]

I've heard (possibly incorrectly) that it's a higher video quality codec than DV, but is it something that would be practical to edit with? I.E., would I get a better look from my mini-DV footage by digitizing it as Pixlet format? Or would that be overkill for the quality of the source tape? And would it take more or less space on my drive?

I know it hasn't actually been released to the public, but just in case anyone has heard or knows anything... thanks!

[DeathMan]

Well assuming pixlet is a better quality codec than DV, it wouldn't really make sense to upsample. It'd be like converting your mp3s to AAC files to get a quality improvement. It would probably hurt more than it helped.

However, maybe if they made a way to convert DV to pixlet (as in on the fly conversion, so you don't even notice it), and pixlet were somehow easier to work with than the DV compression, you might have an easier time working with it while editing.

So you probably wouldn't get a better look, but you might have a better editing experience.

[subego]

DeathMan has it right. It certainly wouldn't have a better look.

Pixlet (like DV) is just a method of compression. The best you could hope for is that it looks exactly the same, while taking up less space. Pixlet does seem to compress better than DV, so you could theoretically make your video files smaller.

The downside is that Pixlet is handled by your CPU and DV is handled by a chip on your camera/deck/whatever. You'd probably need a G4 just to get Pixlet to work. You can edit DV on a pre G3 computer.

[macbain80]

Thanks for the help!

Actually, I was wondering if the "DV" codec was lossless coming from a mini-DV tape. I know they have the same name, but I read somewhere that the "DV" codec is a little lossy, so even coming in from a DV tape, wouldn't it lose some image data? And would Pixlet carry more data?

Hopefully that makes some remote sense.

[jac]

Importing DV is lossless. The transfer between tape and computer is digital and the data remains the same no matter how many times you g back and forth.

[Eug]

Originally posted by subego:
DeathMan has it right. It certainly wouldn't have a better look.

Pixlet (like DV) is just a method of compression. The best you could hope for is that it looks exactly the same, while taking up less space. Pixlet does seem to compress better than DV, so you could theoretically make your video files smaller.

The downside is that Pixlet is handled by your CPU and DV is handled by a chip on your camera/deck/whatever. You'd probably need a G4 just to get Pixlet to work. You can edit DV on a pre G3 computer.

Yep, just PLAYBACK of a Pixlet high-def clip would require a GHz G4, according to Jobs. ie. For the laptop users, everything under a GHz TiBook is inadequate.

[k_munic]

Originally posted by macbain80:
Thanks for the help!

Actually, I was wondering if the "DV" codec was lossless coming from a mini-DV tape. I know they have the same name, but I read somewhere that the "DV" codec is a little lossy, so even coming in from a DV tape, wouldn't it lose some image data? And would Pixlet carry more data?

Hopefully that makes some remote sense.

DV is not a lossless compression; it's compressing the datas from "behind the lens" to tape. these bit-streams are 1-by-1 transferred by firewire into you computer. if you use a dv-camcorder, dv is your compression mode! the re-cpmprerssion is done by a hardware chip in your camera (or, if you have some luxury, your dv-player)

pixlets, afaik, makes only sense working with data from digitizers using much higher resolutions then dv-camcorders. so, for the movie people, recording their analog material with 48bits, 4k lines it is for sure an interesting compressor.

not for the rest of us :-)

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Eug:
Yep, just PLAYBACK of a Pixlet high-def clip would require a GHz G4, according to Jobs. ie. For the laptop users, everything under a GHz TiBook is inadequate.

And that's at half HD res: 960x540 or thereabouts.

Pixlet was developed so that Pixar could share high-quality playback among its people without resorting to a frame server or high-speed array.

There's a mentioning of it a the QuickTime State of the Union presentation==around the 55 minute mark

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by scottiB:
And that's at half HD res: 960x540 or thereabouts.

Oops. Yep, not the full 1920x1080. Actually that 4X the size.

There's a mentioning of it a the QuickTime State of the Union presentation==around the 55 minute mark

Thanks. 55:23.

Compression is 20:1 to 40:1. Colour depth is variable.

For 960x540, they claim a data rate of DV.