I understand what the previous responder is saying, but the menus that I have created in Nero have MUCH clearer type. I just find it hard to believe that the quality of Nero (although good software) would be better than DVD Arhitect. The reason I bought DVD Architect is to better my DVD menu/chapter, etc. options, which it will do, but what's the use if the type is cruddy looking?

Purely for-what-it's-worth...

I can't compare your Nero & DVDA title text on your monitor to see if there might be any differences in colors, saturation, anti-aliasing etc.

That said... More advanced levels of DVD authoring always involve creating graphics and motion menus outside of the authoring program. And most DVDs are designed for use with the greatest possible number of players & screens -- you normally don't want to respond to complaints with: "Oh... It won't look right on your TV". In my experience DVDA's titling & subs are comparable (if not sharper) than commercial/retail DVDs.

Entry level DVD authoring apps/applets IMHO assume something along the lines of don't know - don't care, and when it comes to rendering text behave like entry level image editors ignoring things like anti-aliasing.

But if that's what you prefer, Cool... Turn off shadows, pick your fonts, crank the transparency to 0, pump up the color saturation by mixing your own text colors, & let 'er rip.

Also FWIW, check some of the DVD & VIdeo forums if you want to see just how poorly Nero's DVD applet is rated [hint: start at abysmal & go down]

I just find it hard to believe that the quality of Nero (although good software) would be better than DVD Arhitect.

Of course you find it hard to believe; because it's not true. ;-) The MPEG2 encoder that comes with Vegas is one of the best available.

What you're experiencing is not a matter of "quality" from the DVD authoring app. It's a matter of you, the person controlling it, choosing colors and fonts that work well for video. In particular, video that will be viewed on a television rather than a computer. For all we know, you experienced better "quality" using Nero because you happen to use a better combination of colors and fonts at that time.

In addition, DVD Architect has an option that may help. Depending on the version you're using, check the Properties window for an option called "Reduce interlace flicker."

Rob

I have to agree with the poster re: Nero vs DVDA menu title clarity if you use DVDA defaults. I've found that in DVDA if I turn off menu rendering as progresive, and turn off reduce interlace flicker that the titles look as clear as Nero. Nero has extremely limited menu creation options however.

My understanding is that some DVD players do better with progressive rendered menus (don't know why - just something I read on these forums) rather than interlaced. My experience so far has not borne that out.

So, try turning off allow progressive menu rendering in the preferences and see if that gets you what you want.

For video use, I primarily use Nero for extracting mpg files from DVD VOBs and for it's burning engine.

I know DVDA is a good piece of software, that's why I bought it. The only reason I even brought up Nero is for the comparison of how the type on my menus looked. I've made lots of DVD's using Nero and have never had issues with what colors, fonts etc. not to use. My menu type has always looked pretty good.
I am here because when I made my first couple of DVD's using DVDA the menu type was fuzzy and it surprised me that it looked so bad! So I'm asking "what's wrong? Is it my settings? How do I know what fonts, colors etc. not to use in DVDA if the preview looks good? I will try the previous suggestions and see if any help. Thanks.

@plasmavideo - not contradicting, but just in case it's of interest...
"...turn off menu rendering as progresive, and turn off reduce interlace flicker that the titles look as clear as Nero"

Rendering progressive menus, either the vid in Vegas or from DVDA, is needed if you're doing a separate video intro or transition out of the menu -- helps things match up so you don't get a little positional jerk when one vid ends and other starts. It probably has other uses (ie. for progressive screens etc.), but that's the main one I'm aware of.

Reducing interlace flicker is intended (might be needed) for interlaced TV display where you have sharp horizontal lines -- thin ones are worse. Since one field (every other line) goes dark at ~ 30fps, it can make horizontal edges dance or flicker. Blurring makes it less noticeable by spreading the edge over more than one line.

It makes sense it could lead to fuzzier text, but I thought it was usually off by default (?). At any rate DVD display on a PC depends on software, graphics card, drivers & settings, & monitor -- often the picture is deinterlaced & optimized for PC display automatically, so it's really hard to say what any one person sees without duplicating their hard & software.

"some DVD players do better with progressive rendered menus"

There's a LOT of variability when it comes to players, authoring software, mpg2 video, & even media. Long story short, a hardware player is going to output interlaced vid to an interlaced display -- progressive to progressive. Either way it's designed to do some internal conversion, and that can clash with field/pulldown flags in the mpg2 video.

"...use Nero for extracting mpg files from DVD VOBs"

OT -- might want to try Shrink also [assumed to have been authored by the same guy behind Recode].

Anyway, just trivia I guess FWIW :?P