Comments

Chienworks wrote on 4/6/2004, 9:10 AM
If you are encoding with TMPGenc then the quality settings you need to adjust are in that software, not in MovieStudio.
vwcrusher wrote on 4/6/2004, 9:19 AM
OH......then what is the step titled 'Make movie' in MS?
I then save it to the hard drive, then author, burn........
Isn't the 'make movie' step encoding?
Chienworks wrote on 4/6/2004, 11:12 AM
It depends on what you do with the Make Movie step. If you're rendering to an AVI file to then use in TMPGenc then you are only rendering, not encoding. If you Make Movie to an MPEG file then you are encoding during that step. Of course, if you create an MPEG file there then you won't be using TMPGenc at all.
vwcrusher wrote on 4/6/2004, 11:53 AM
Yes, I had to encode to MPEG. Actually, I tried to use TMPGenc with an avi file and it didn't seem to work. I thought all it could work with was MPEG files....yes?
Chienworks wrote on 4/6/2004, 1:01 PM
TMPGenc *produces* MPEG files. It will take several different formats for its input.
allyn wrote on 4/6/2004, 2:39 PM
you guys are talking about two different pieces of software. chienworks is talking about tmpgenc the mpeg encoder, while vwcrusher is talking about tmpgenc author, the authoring software.

if vwcrusher was using tmpgenc the encoder he would create an avi file in movie studio, then create the mpeg-2 in tmpgenc the encoder and all of the quality settings would be handled in tmpgenc. there is endless tweaking available in tmpgenc the encoder.

since vwcrusher is using tmpgenc author, he should create the mpeg-2 file in movie studio and author with the resulting file. movie studio has no quality choices when using the built-in mpeg-2 encoder, what you get is what you get.

hope that helps.
vwcrusher wrote on 4/7/2004, 5:22 AM
Thank you Allyn,

I was getting more confused as the thread developed.

The basic question is this: At present I am capturing in MPEG2, skipping editing using MS 3.0 because of the decrease in quality, and editing (cutting) and burning using TMPGenc Author, as image quality is more important than 'slick-ness.'

If I were to purchase a device that would allow capture in .AVI (like a Canopus 1394 or ADStech Pyro AVlink), then use MS 3.0 for more advanced editing and effects in .AVI and encoding to MPEG2, then use TMPGenc Author to add chapters and burn how would the resulting image quality compare with what I am doing now?
IanG wrote on 4/7/2004, 10:20 AM
What's your original source material?

Ian G.
vwcrusher wrote on 4/7/2004, 11:08 AM
Its analog VHS and 8 mm video tape.


thanks
IanG wrote on 4/8/2004, 6:06 AM
I should also have asked how you're capturing! I think the critical step is the MPEG2 encoding - if you're currently using something like a TV card, the quality isn't likely to be very good, so capturing as avi and using a good encoder should be better. Whether or not it's worth the extra money I can't say. If your MPEG2 is good to start with I wouldn't expect much difference.

If you're capturing MPEG2, and then going directly to TMPGEnc Author, where does MS fit into things?

Ian G.
vwcrusher wrote on 4/8/2004, 7:04 AM
Good question, Ian.

I am capturing via a Sony Vaio PC, which has the ability to capture only to MPEG2. The quality is pretty good as compared to the original analog video.

The drawback is that if I edi with MS and then re-encode to MPEG the image quality suffers greatly.

My wish is to perhaps not capture in MPEG2, but AVI (using some external device - suggestions are welcome) and then edit using MS, encode to MPEG, author and burn using TMPGenc.

Make sense?
IanG wrote on 4/8/2004, 10:22 AM
The theory sounds good, but I've no experience of analog capture, sorry! Anybody? Just for fun, try Virtualdub-mpeg2 which will convert your MPEG2s to avi. I've had mixed results - the bad stuff was unusable, but the good was excellent! It's freeware, so you might be lucky!

Ian G.