Comments

rllagas wrote on 6/1/2005, 9:41 PM
thank u.

have downloaded it already.

how will i encode my project in edited in vegas. will it create a selection in the template?

thnks for the link.

rllagas
jaegersing wrote on 6/1/2005, 9:58 PM
tmpgenc is not a plugin for Vegas. The easiest way to use it is to export a DV AVI file from Vegas and convert it to MPEG1 inside tmpgenc.

Richard Hunter
Grazie wrote on 6/1/2005, 10:23 PM
That is exactly what I do too. For me in the UK, I create a PAL DV AVI and open in the encoder.

I've made MPEG1 VCDs for clients and I'm really "stretched" to see a difference between DVD (mpeg2) and TMPGEnc mpeg1. However, I have created many TMPGEnc mpeg1 rendering template formats to "stumble" on the recipe that works for me. Experiment and discover the amazing results you can achieve. I haven't gone to deep in the more esoteric menus. I've kept to the "Best", rates .. for me I've gone for 4mb/sec, and 44 and 48 layer 2. The encoder can Batch render, so making rendering template formats and experimenting couldn't be easier.

I've just copied out a VCD for a client which was 4mins creating a miserly 126mbs . . . And all on a 10p CD too! Oh yes, and for me they play on my cheapo DVD player AND my portable DVD player which I take to clients.

The new TMPGEnc GUI is truly easy to use and now you can Drag 'n Plop files it is the nearest thing to a Vegas Plug-in you can get with it NOT being a plug-in - if you know what I mean?

Grazie
johnmeyer wrote on 6/1/2005, 11:02 PM
I've made MPEG1 VCDs for clients and I'm really "stretched" to see a difference between DVD (mpeg2) and TMPGEnc mpeg1.

You're joking, right? I spent months, several years ago, perfecting a VCD recipe with TMPGEnc, but when I got the DVD burner -- well, the differences were enormous. Maybe there is something about PAL (I'm here in the states). VCD isn't bad, for what it is, but even the best VCD I ever made wasn't even close to the quality of the worst DVD I've ever produced.

If you have some secrets, I'd love to hear them, because I too sometimes still need to produce a VCD.
Grazie wrote on 6/1/2005, 11:08 PM
Sure . .I can email you my template . . it'll be PAL .. sorry!

But when I say I'm stretched, if I get real close to the screen and really look at edges and so on, but at a distance at about 8' on a 23" PAL 625 line tv they do really look great.

JM, tell me what you see and I'll be even more critical of my work AND I will try and see the difference - yeah? Maybe my DVDs aint that good too? HAH . . LOL!! ! ! But please tell me what you are seeing "bad" in your previous experiments - yeah?

Grazie
farss wrote on 6/2/2005, 12:25 AM
I've been down this road as well, as always it comes back to the source. Really bad VHS just gets really horrible when encoded for VCD, the loss is quite extreme. But starting with a production master on BetaSP the result was amazing, I agree with Grazie, for all the hoopla about resolution you've got to look pretty hard to see the difference.
I think part of the issue though is how you evaluate it, it's pretty hard to do a real A/B comparison when you've got to swap disks in and out of the player, the only decent way to just these kinds of things is a split screen setup and that's not too easy to do. Also you've got to factor in the degredation due to the player-monitor interconnect and the quality of the monitor.

For the first time in a long time last week I recorded something off air to VHS, straight from the DVB receiver into the deck. When I played it back I was pretty shocked, how did we ever watch such horrible video, maybe I should go back and play some old VCDs, maybe they weren't as good as I remembered, they were certainly better than VHS!

I think also us lucky souls in PAL land are a bit spoiled, the step up from PAL res to 720p is not as great as going from NTSC to 720p, perhaps that's why down here 720p is a bit of a yawn. It seems it's not until you get to 1080 that the difference is enough to create a wow factor in the publics eyes.

But anyway I have a lot of respect for VCD, made 100s of them and that's what got me started with Vegas and there's still a huge market for them in Asia, after all if all you've got is a 14" TV, a DVD is a bit of a waste really.

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 6/2/2005, 12:42 AM

Yes, Bob .. . Look, I'm doing small projects that will be played on PC and TVs and not really high-end stuff.

My latest was for a judging panel for a client's application - it's a National Library thing .. anyway their application using my video on MPEG1 has been shortlisted! AND the judges are now coming to the venue to make their appraisal of the library in question. Soooo.. my efforts and the VCD or rather the MPEG1 file really did its job!

Yup! Me Happy Boy here . . .totally unbearable to live with for the last 2 weeks.

TMPGEnc and MPEG1? Does it for me . . and as Bob says the PAL thing maybe the thing. It just looks good.

Grazie



Grazie
gordyboy wrote on 6/2/2005, 4:29 AM
You can also use the Debugmode FrameServer to render directly within Vegas to MPG1 using TMPGEnc as the encoder.

Cheers

gb

B_JM wrote on 6/2/2005, 6:06 AM
just a tip -

above someone mentioned to export a DV file to tmpgenc to make a VCD , I suggest you NOT do this as VCDs are progressive only ..

Make your project in Vegas progressive and de-interlace in vegas 6 (if vegas 5, you might want to de-interlace in tmpgenc anyway) , and frame serve to tmpgenc using rgb output (tmpgenc uses rgb input) ...

farss wrote on 6/2/2005, 7:14 AM
Good tip but..this implies there's some difference between de-interlacing in V5 and V6!
Anyone care to elaborate on this?
I didn't see any changes in that respect listed in the features.
Bob.
riredale wrote on 6/2/2005, 8:32 AM
I don't understand the value of deinterlacing in Vegas. After all, if the VCD format is deinterlaced anyway, then I would assume that the MPEG1 encoder would do a fine job of deinterlacing at that point.

Grazie: the very fact that VCD uses MPEG1 means that it uses only one field of the two available in PAL or NTSC, so the vertical resolution is greatly reduced at the outset. Still, I would agree that a doubling (or halving) of vertical and horizontal spatial resolution can be a surprisingly subtle difference, depending on viewing distance and equipment.