Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ac2000" data-source="post: 5508979" data-attributes="member: 132852">Technical analyst exposes 'C- 4' gutter journalism         < C-4 video created from a video camera, not from a mobile          phone.                   < Sound dubbed: a case study for gutter journalism.           In video coding or broadcasting to create a          final video for any occasion it is the practice to start with high          quality video first while transcending with editing for a final product.          Mpeg4 is a compressed format.          If one considers the Channel- 4 video:          ● It says it came from a          mobile phone video source. There are only two formats in mobile          video formats. One is an old 3GPP format and the other an advanced         Mpeg4, H-264 part 10 which is MP4 format which is highly          processor intensive encoding and due to this issue, mobile phones in the          present markets does not produce high quality videos. Such processors          are not that powerful to take good quality video that Channel- 4 claims          since channel - 4 video is much high quality than existing Smart          phones can create TODAY.          ● Within H-264 coding we also          have extra component called Motion Vectors (VMC) which are used          to predict motion on temporal and spatial domain. The Channel - 4 video          have quite high quality VMC(motion Vector) and this VMC came from a          video camera and not from a mobile phone source. Also Mobile source          also tend to be blocky in nature when it come to motion.          ● Since original video is          from AVI and QuickTime format, the whole video scenario indicates that          ORIGINAL video is of high quality that came from a video camera source          since mobile formats does not use AVI or Quicktime which are high          quality video formats.          ● If they changed the mobile          format to AVI or QT then the final video will be of poor quality. In the          analysis it was found that the AVI and QT formats are of very high          quality.          ● Also it is quite          explicit that the camcorder video was transferred to a computer for          editing and sound was dubbed later and gun shots were not in synchronism          with the video and normally audio is always way ahead of the video since          video processing takes time and in this case the audio is very late          INDICATING a very amateurish video and audio editing. <a href="http://defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090903_05" target="_blank">http://defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090903_05</a></blockquote>

Verification: Payakata winadi keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom