Amateur Video Production Using Free Software and Linux
In 1999 I purchased my first DVD player. My wife and I had a small collection of VHS tapes containing videos that we wanted to view using our new purchase. Furthermore, optical media is very convenient and stable, and the idea of storing our video collection on CD-R discs was very attractive to us. What followed was a very indepth investigation that has flourished into an interesting hobby. In this article, I cover how to digitize analog video sources for storage and manipulation on a computer, tools for editing video on a computer and some options for publishing digital videos. One publishing option I present is storage in the video CD (VCD) format, which is compatible with many DVD players. All of these steps are performed using free software.
I am a software developer, not a video producer, so please bear with me as you read this article.
The first obstacle I encountered in my work to convert my videos was how to digitize the analog VHS tapes. Because I wanted to convert standard analog video tapes, IEEE 1394 (Apple calls this interface FireWire; Sony calls it i.LINK), though extremely powerful, defines a purely digital interface and would not suffice. Instead, I decided to purchase a video capture card. Many vendors produce these cards, which take standard analog video streams and digitize them for storage or display on a computer. I bought Hauppauge WinTV PCI video capture card that works nicely with Linux for around $80 US. Incidentally, the Linux driver framework for video capture cards is named Video4Linux.
There are a few important considerations to make when purchasing a video capture card, though they are becoming less relevant as the speed of computers continues to increase. Because capturing video from most analog sources must occur in real time, writing raw video to disk requires a very fast hard drive. In my experience, even a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive has difficulty storing raw 24-bit video with a resolution of 640 x 480 and a frame rate of 23.9 frames/second. Think about it: around 30 frames per second, 640 x 480 = 307,200 pixels per frame, and each pixel is 24 bits. In order to store uncompressed video of this quality, a hard drive needs to write 2.21 x 108 bits, or around 26MB every second!
Don't run out and buy an expensive high-speed disk array quite yet—an alternative exists. Compressing the raw video before writing it to disk shifts some work away from the hard disk. Compression can be done either by a dedicated processor, shifting work to video capture card compression hardware, or in software, shifting work to the system's CPU. Since my system has two 1,000MHz CPUs, my cheap Hauppauge card, which lacks compression hardware, performs just fine. If your computer's CPU is a little slower, it may make more sense to invest in a video capture card with hardware compression capabilities and save a relatively expensive CPU upgrade for later.
Capturing raw or losslessly compressed video is ideal for editing purposes, but capturing using a carefully chosen lossy technique such as MJPEG, which stores each frame using JPEG still image compression, is a realistic compromise. JPEG compression can be performed relatively quickly in software. In addition, many hardware video compressors output MJPEG.
Even when compressing a video stream before writing it, hard disk speed is important in digitizing video. It follows that the filesystem used is a large factor in performance. I have experimented with the ext2, ReiserFS and XFS filesystems. My experience is that capturing video to an XFS filesystem generally outperforms capturing to ext2- or ReiserFS-formatted disks. XFS has the additional benefit over ext2 of being a journaling filesystem.
Andrew Morton's low-latency kernel patch also seems to help the digitization process. I find that with Andrew's patch I am able to perform minor tasks on my computer while capturing video without losing too many frames.
As I am from the United States, I am interested in using the National Television System Committee analog video format (NTSC). Many Europeans may be more interested in PAL, which has similar properties. If you live elsewhere, a little research will reveal the analog video format used in your region. My VHS tapes are encoded using NTSC. NTSC has a range of acceptable resolutions and frame rates; when capturing from a VHS source I generally capture 640 x 480 frames at a rate of 23.976 frames/second. Though VCDs, being digital, don't have a video norm such as NTSC, DVD players generally use the frame rate that a VCD contains to decide what type of analog signal they will send to the television to which they are connected. For example, if I encode VCDs at 25 frames/second, my DVD player outputs a PAL signal that looks distorted on my NTSC television. If I encode the same video stream at 23.976 frames/second, a valid NTSC frame rate, my DVD player outputs an NTSC signal to my television.
Digital media streams found on a computer are generally stored as a wrapping format containing one or more audio and video tracks. Examples of wrapping formats are AVI and QuickTime. QuickTime has the advantage of being well defined by Apple, supported on Linux and able to store video streams much larger than 4GB. Within the wrapping format, different compression techniques such as MJPEG, OpenDivX, Ogg Vorbis and MPEG audio may be used. These compression/decompression techniques are often called codecs. Wrapping formats such as QuickTime also can contain storage-intensive raw digital audio and video.
I have found that streamer, part of the xawtv package, performs the digitization task nicely. Using streamer, my system can capture 640 x 480 video at a frame rate of 23.976 frames/second from my video capture card and compress it in real time to an MJPEG encoded QuickTime before writing it to disk.
Practical Task Scheduling Deployment
July 20, 2016 12:00 pm CDT
One of the best things about the UNIX environment (aside from being stable and efficient) is the vast array of software tools available to help you do your job. Traditionally, a UNIX tool does only one thing, but does that one thing very well. For example, grep is very easy to use and can search vast amounts of data quickly. The find tool can find a particular file or files based on all kinds of criteria. It's pretty easy to string these tools together to build even more powerful tools, such as a tool that finds all of the .log files in the /home directory and searches each one for a particular entry. This erector-set mentality allows UNIX system administrators to seem to always have the right tool for the job.
Cron traditionally has been considered another such a tool for job scheduling, but is it enough? This webinar considers that very question. The first part builds on a previous Geek Guide, Beyond Cron, and briefly describes how to know when it might be time to consider upgrading your job scheduling infrastructure. The second part presents an actual planning and implementation framework.
Join Linux Journal's Mike Diehl and Pat Cameron of Help Systems.
Free to Linux Journal readers.Register Now!
- Paranoid Penguin - Building a Secure Squid Web Proxy, Part IV
- SUSE LLC's SUSE Manager
- Google's SwiftShader Released
- Managing Linux Using Puppet
- Murat Yener and Onur Dundar's Expert Android Studio (Wrox)
- My +1 Sword of Productivity
- Non-Linux FOSS: Caffeine!
- SuperTuxKart 0.9.2 Released
- Parsing an RSS News Feed with a Bash Script
- Doing for User Space What We Did for Kernel Space
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide