> "One thing seems clear, that I should acquire and use TMPGEnc as an intermediate step between native output from Vegas Pro and DVD Architect. I had no idea that this program existed."

There are several very good mpg2 encoders -- the folks behind TMPGEnc have been at it a long time & do excellent work. In my experience few if any NLEs achieve the same quality & speed down-rezing video, especially interlaced, that you can get using other software tools. That said, dxtv doesn't mention whether the video frame-served out of VP is re-sized yet or not -- that makes a difference, whether TMPGEnc is down-rezing or just encoding what it's given.

> " I have recently compared some results rendered both using the same source material in both VP11 and Edius 6.5 and the difference is remarkable. Edius wins hands down... This should be a fair comparison since both applications cost about the same. Vegas wins hands down what comes to usability, but best possible render quality is also important."

PURELY FWIW... personally I not sure I'd always buy VP if I paid MSRP rather than upgrade. Years ago comparisons I did in Vegas & P/Pro convinced me neither did as good a job as other tools when it came to re-sizing... Vegas & P/Pro were always a bit soft or less sharp & slower. I've seen little since to change my mind, though the speed difference might be less important, make less of a difference if a good portion of your rendering time is taken up moving HD data from one place to another. As far as the MC mpg2 encoder goes, I often like it better using VP to down-rez rather than letting the encoder do the job, but mileage varies. Somewhat often I'll use AviSynth & V/Dub to to create intermediates using the UT Video codec, sending those to VP either at the proj. start or replacing clips. And deinterlacing & IVT are a whole 'nuther ball game on top of that stuff -- you'll find discussion on that end of things in many different threads in this forum. As someone's already posted, blending or interpolation to deinterlace are hardly state of the art -- adding the effects of either to an already softer frame re-size isn't going to do your rep any favors.

"That said, dxtv doesn't mention whether the video frame-served out of VP is re-sized yet or not -- that makes a difference, whether TMPGEnc is down-rezing or just encoding what it's given"

I do use TMPGEnc to down-rez and encode simultaneously, from 1920 x 1080 to SD. I just finished a project tonight with VP12 and TMPGEnc, and I really love the look of the output on a 32" flatscreen, played on a Sony DVD player. This was with lots of motion, large variations in light and shadow, and some intricate patterns on peoples' clothing.

TMPG is amazing to be short. Where it really shines is the ability to use a low bit rate & still have superior quality. This helps for long videos. When bit rates are high the difference between encoders is negligible unless viewed on a big screen. Does vegas have Lanczos resampling? This may be why TMPG is better.

dibbkd, try sony avchd & match the resolution and make a custom template with the highest bit rate.

@ Musicvid. I'd probably agree. If using TMPGEnc (Anyone know what that actually stands for???) to render say HDV to HDV, I see no obvious improvements to the rendered file from using Vegas. It's when you move on to resizing/deinterlacing that the differences smack you in the face. This thread might help you MrBrook: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=800808

Is TMPGEnc similar to VirtualDub? By similar I mean does it does the same thing, just promulgated by different people? I've played with VirtualDub a little. Haven't taken the time to look at TMPGEnc yet. Thanks.

Arthur,

It used to be called Tsunami Mpeg Encoder.

Dave T2

Adding to Dave's post, I think that they were one of the very 1st mpg2 encoders to hit the scene years ago, maybe before Ulead came up with their 1st versions of their DVD authoring app. Very good, a bit more technical re: settings etc., they were bought or merged or whatever with the folks behind the PicVideo mjpeg capture codec that was, again years ago, terribly popular.

> "Is TMPGEnc similar to VirtualDub?"

Only maybe in that they were both favored by video geeks. :)

Avery Less, the dev behind V/Dub has its story summarized pretty well on the home page [virtualdub.org]. It's a linear editor that does its thing Fast, with an open plug-in architecture that has resulted in loads of plug-in filters, many very similar or duplicates to what's been written for AviSynth. It does not have a great range of input/output formats, though you can most always come up with a way to import video via AviSynth. For output you can frame-serve to VP or whatever, or I usually generate an intermediate in the UT Video codec [Note: I have had prob. with later versions of UT, so backup before adding].

TMPGENC (aka Tsunamai) was the first to release a free unlicensed MPEG-2 encoder, over a decade ago. That's just when DVDs were being pushed on the public.
It wasn't out very long before someone got an injunction and they pulled the beta. From then on it's been a licensed encoder with a free trial. I still have the beta on an old hard drive somewhere, and the encoder wasn't bad then.

Where is the best place to get TMPGEnc? I went to their site and it looks like there is more than one kind? Mastering, authoring,??? Call me not very smart I guess but I am not sure which one to get?

Do I use MPEG Smart Renderer 4 or Mastering Works 5?

Authoring is for building a DVD. Mastering is for encoding to mpg2, etc.

It's been fascinating to me to be doing video for the past 10+ years while the whole DVD-burning phenomenon developed. I can remember proudly buying $5 Apple-branded DVD-R blanks after buying other blanks that were very hit-or-miss. Tried most of the MPEG2 encoders back in the early days, tried most of the DVD authoring programs. Wound up doing a lot of encoding with CinemaCraft, which was and still is a wonderfully-sophisticated MPEG2 encoder. I was routinely able to put 2+ hours on a DVD-5 with high quality. BUT it took a lot of attention to details and the kind of tweaking that CinemaCraft afforded.

I discovered a few years back that the MainConcept MPEG2 encoder in Vegas7 had advanced to be very near CinemaCraft quality for projects not pushing the low-bitrate boundary, so I switched over to it for most projects.

How does Hollywood deliver such nice quality at such low bitrates? Several factors. First, they deal with just 24 frames per second. Then they record on a medium delivering a very high S/N ratio (noise is the bane of MPEG2 encoding). Everything in the chain from lenses on down delivers a very high MTF (Modulation Transfer Function), allowing them to present the MPEG2 encoder with an extremely sharp and clean product.

Back ten years ago there was a world of difference between Hollywood encoding and consumer encoding. With CinemaCraft and an improved MainConcept, not so much. Still a big difference in the source, though.