My limited experience is that if I view the three types of files on my television, avi via my camcorder, mpeg2 via dvd, and mpeg1 on cd, their quality is best in that order. If you view them only on pc, no telling. I think my 50 minute avi files render about 8 plus gigabytes. The others are smaller and take much longer. Anyway, have been taught on this site that only viewing a test on the final medium and monitor will tell what is best. I use the templates pretty much even for ntsc dvd, even though I can't fit as much movie on the dvd, the quality is worth it to me.

Take a look at my post under the "OT:S-video difference" subject.

Craig H.

jthor hit the nail on the head.

AVI uncrompressed would be the best, but because it is so large and would take a long time to render this isn't a great way to go.

DV AVI (NTSC or PAL) is second and probably your best option because it is 1/5th the size of uncompressed and usually doesn't take that long to render unless you have a lot of filters, FX and transitions. The reason you may think it doesn't look good is because you are viewing them on a PC and it takes a lot of processing power to view large files. Windows Media Player does not do a good job of this either, you can tell with moving objects that the video is not refreshing fast enough. I found that the player that came with my ATI software worked a hell of a lot better than WMP for AVIs. Anyway, if you use a print to tape type application, like the one that comes with VV, you should get better results when viewing on a TV.

MPEG2 is next, usually used for DVD production.

MPEG1 is OK and usually used for VCD production because of the smaller size.

Thanks all for your responses. You really answered my question- especially the point that viewing on the computer monitor is not an accurate reflection of the TV. With the reality check your messages provided, I now understand why NTSC DV AVI will be the way to go.