DVD looks crappy on laptop, great on TV

slacy wrote on 7/23/2006, 2:08 AM
If you create a DVD using the Vegas preset (DVD Architect NTSC video stream) and then use the standard data rate when burning the DVD, is there any reason why a DVD would look crappy on two different laptop screens but good on a TV? Am I missing something obvious here? Is there a setting I should be aware of?

For some background info, graphics look fuzzy and low-res when the DVD is viewed on the laptop, but they look fine on a TV.

Comments

jrazz wrote on 7/23/2006, 2:14 AM
Not sure how much you know concerning TV's and Laptops, but they are "a horse of a different color" if you will.
A TV displays interlaced footage on round pixels (which it was designed for) while a laptop or CRT displays the footage on square pixels.
If you made the DVD for primary viewing on your laptop, I would do another encode to wmv from that same .veg file. This way, you can have an encode that was made for computer viewing as well as one that is made for TV- the dvd you already made.

j razz
slacy wrote on 7/23/2006, 3:21 AM
So just use one of the other compressors (Sorenson 3, for example) and burn a data file that can be played from a laptop? That's kind of the direction I was heading instinctively, but it's comforting to know if that's what others would do under the same circumstances.

At any rate, how is that commercial DVDs play well on either set-top boxes OR laptops? Is it an issue of the quality of the MPG2 encoder?
farss wrote on 7/23/2006, 3:49 AM
Mostly commercial DVDs are created from progressvie scan source i.e film. Computer display devices with the exception of CRTs are also progressive scan so to display the video no de-interlacing is involved, result, better looking images.

However to a large extent the results of playing interlaced video on computers depends on the quality of the de-interlacing. Some seem to do a way better job than others. Also you might find there's settings within the DVD player program that give a better results.

The other thing that seems to make quite a difference is the scaling of the video. At a 1 to 1 pixel ration video ends up not filling the screen on computers so some form of scaling is used, this can be pretty good or really aweful. We have a number of Bravia LCD TVs and with SD they look just horrible.

Bob.
Paul_Holmes wrote on 7/23/2006, 3:55 AM
I've noticed this same issue to some degree. Making wmv files, however, kind of takes away from the whole purpose of the interactivity of a DVD. What I try to do and think I do fairly successfully, is make sure it looks good on the TV and then check it against the display on the LCD monitor, sometimes compromising a little on both to make both look good. Usually this is accomplished using levels to raise brightness levels, since the LCD display sometimes looks too contrasty.

All my 60i footage is converted to 24p before I do the edit so interlaced is not an issue with me.
Spot|DSE wrote on 7/23/2006, 7:25 AM
Bear in mind that your Laptop screen can resolve significantly higher than can a television. In other words, if you have a file that is 720 x 480 and your laptop is set to a resolution of 1600 x 1200 or so, images will appear blocky or blurred, depending on your vid card, but since the resolution is nearly identical to the line resolution of a television, the DVD will appear to be all good.
farss wrote on 7/23/2006, 7:42 AM
Probably the other issue is that we watch computer screens at a much larger viewing angle than we do TVs. Watch your TV at the same viewing angle as you look at your computer screen and it doesn't look that great either.

Bob.
kentwolf wrote on 7/23/2006, 11:09 AM
For what it's worth, I have seen several video effects that are optimized for TV and look horrible on a PC monitor. Glowing text is one example that comes to mind.

It all depends on your desired delivery medium.