MPEG2 to ULEAD or AVI to ULEAD

ChristerTX wrote on 6/25/2003, 10:26 AM

Would there be any reason NOT to create a MPEG2 to use in e.g. ULEAD Video Factory?
Will I loose any quality compared to using a non-compressed file such as AVI as input and let ULEAD do the rest?

I do have the MPEG-2 plug in for VF.

Cheers / Christer

Comments

discdude wrote on 6/25/2003, 12:03 PM

No, there should be little to no quality difference between importing a MPEG-2 file vs. DV-AVI file into Ulead Movie Factory.

Here's why:

DV (from camcorder) -> Edit -> Render to MPEG-2 -> Import to DVD Movie Factory

vs.

DV (from camcorder) -> Edit -> Render to DV* -> Import to DVD Movie Factory -> Render to MPEG-2

*This step is nearly lossless since VF only re-encodes the parts that have changed. Plus, the DV codec re-encodes very well.

As you can see you go from DV->MPEG-2 no matter what method you choose. The first method (render direct to MPEG-2) certainly wastes less time and HD space but costs more (because you have to buy a MPEG-2 encoder).

You could argue that their are differences between the Video Factory encoder and the Movie Factory encoder but I believe that both encoders are licensed from the same company, Mainconcept.

Essentially, this is a time vs. money arguement, not a quality arguement.

trevorst wrote on 6/26/2003, 2:32 PM

I agree with the comments that Disdude wrote but in my experience VF creates a better quality Mpeg file than ulead even though they may use the same encoder.

JohnnyRoy wrote on 6/27/2003, 7:53 AM

I agree with discdude and trevorst it’s been my observation that VideoFactory does a better job at MPEG encoding that DVD MovieFactory. I always output to MPEG and then import into DVD MF.

~jr

Maynard123 wrote on 7/1/2003, 5:31 AM

I have heard that you can get better MPEG encoding using a tool like TMPGEnc. Does that mean that the sequence would be:

DV (from cam) -> Edit (in VF) -> Render to AVI (in VF) -> Encode to MPEG-2 (in TMPGEnc) -> Import to DVD Movie Factory

Would this produce a better quality product?

Thanks.

JohnnyRoy wrote on 7/1/2003, 7:41 AM

Your sequence is correct, but No, I don’t think this will produce better quality. When I first started making VCD’s two years ago, TMPGEnc was the only way to go. It was far superior to anything anyone was shipping in the less than $500 category. That is no longer true. I stopped using TMPEnc when I got Vegas and the new MainConcept MPEG encoder. The quality is the same or even better than TMPGEnc in some cases using the MainConcept encoder. The same is true at DVD quality.

To get the latest MainConcept encoder, follow the instructions from SoFo in this post which says:

“If you download and install the Vegas 4.0c demo, it will update your MainConcept plug-in to a more recent version so you will see these improvements using MainConcept MPEG from VideoFactory as this plug-in is shared among our applications.”

IMHO, with the new version of the MainConcept encoder there is no reason to use TMPGEnc from VideoFactory.

~jr

Maynard123 wrote on 7/1/2003, 8:47 AM

Thanks, Johnny. If TMPGEnc doesn't really enhance the quality, and I don't have the MPEG encoder associated with Vegas, am I just as well off using the encoder/burner in Ulead MovieFactory? For example, will I get just as good quality with the following sequence:

DV (from cam) -> Edit (in VF) -> Render to AVI (in VF) -> Import AVI to DVD Movie Factory -> Produce MPEG-2/Burn DVD (in MovieFactory)

Thanks.

JohnnyRoy wrote on 7/1/2003, 5:07 PM

I believe that DVD MovieFactory 2 uses the MainConcept encoder. The original MovieFactory used the Ligos encoder, which is far worse than TMPGEnc, So if you’re using MovieFactory 2, then yes you will get the same quality. If not, then you might consider getting TMPGEnc.

~jr

Maynard123 wrote on 7/1/2003, 7:13 PM

Thanks Johnny...this makes the process much easier!