<<having extreme quality problems>>---<<video that is very pixelated and choppy>>

Lacourse, what is the make and model of your DVD player?

Have you tried to use a CD-RW disk?

Jon

Yahhooo!

I've just burnt my very first VCD and streamed it to my TV from my laptop's DVD. Well, I think the quality [MPEG1] is remarkable, and perosnally I can't see the difference between that and sending an DV to VHS[VCR] Tape. Hey I'm sure others have higher requirements than I do. I like the option of burning to CDRW [this one was to CDR] as a possible way of getting better quality. Why is this? Can you also tell me if I should expect 3hrs:20mmins to burn a 50min film clip? Is this within the parameter of VF? Is there any way of reducing the burn time? My Writer is on 8x.

Reagards

Grazie

Dave T2:

Is the quality of an MPEG-2 video burned on DVD a little better, or a lot better, than an MPEG-1 burned on a VCD? My computer has a built-in DVD burner, but I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading to MPEG-2, only to be disappointed with the result. I just found out my home DVD player can't handle DVD-R or DVD-RW, so there goes another $125 to get one that does. Things were so simple when my 386-33 had BOTH 5 1/4" and 3 1/2" floppy drives. :-)


brian

Grazie: there's absolutely no quality difference between burning on CD-R or CD-RW. The difference is that some players can see the data on CD-RW but not on CD-R. If the player can play a CD-R, it won't do any better with a CD-RW.

Labatt50: it can be MUCH better, but that's because there is about 7 times as much room on a DVD-R so you can use a much higher bitrate. MPEG-2 is somewhat better than MPEG-1, but the real difference comes from the higher bitrate. Most DVDs are created in the 8 or 9Mbps range whereas most VCDs are around 1 or 1.5Mbps.

Chienworks answered your question I think. It is not the compression that is the problem, it is the bitrate. Using CD's limits the bitrate on most DVD players to 2500 or less. (some will play higher) whereas a DVD is much higher and allows for better quality transfers. I have had some very good VCD's but the original material was superior to my normal Digital 8 camera. The source can make the difference.

Dave T2

OK here is my results / goals. Recently I have disscussed this stuff on Roxio's board as I have VW for capture on a Dell Movie bundle system. I since changed to VF for editing and producing VCD's. So far I have to say the 1st VCD was OK. It was IN SYNC, something all of us former Video Wave users suffered from. I would say it looked like VCR quality. I could see pixilatioin around text in the movie, but it was tolerable. With that said, I also Have an SVCD of Harry Potter. Someone gave it to me to watch, and WOW it was very good quality. You could see artifacts in the black regions, but overall it was pretty good. It was on 3 discs to make up for the mpeg-2 format. I am thinking of paying for the mpeg-2 upgrade, I just hope my mickey mouse process; DVD To: -Dazzle - Vide Wave - DV Converter - VF - SVCD works the same quality wise, I go through alot of steps. Again, I have no idea how the Potter SVCD was made, but it was good. This tells me it can be done, its a matter of setup, equipment and methods used. Kinda like making GOOD Chilli ;) - the_ripper

Quality of the encode, whether MPEG-1 to VCD, or MPEG-2 to SVCD or DVD, depends on the quality of the encoder, as well as the settings of the encoder. I just did a test yesterday, using a capture from a laserdisc to DV tape as the source. I then transferred this DV tape into my computer (via Firewire/1394) and rendered it to an MPEG-1 using VF 2.0c and the Mainconcept MPEG encoder (default settings). I also rendered the exact same DV AVI file to MPEG-1 using the TMPGEnc encoder (latest release, default settings). Conclusion: There was noticeable pixelization using the VF/Mainconept encoder, but virtually none using TMPGEnc; the encoder DOES make a difference.

I have also done countless experiments with TMPGENc over the past six months trying to get the "ultimate" encoding of music videos that I have taped from VH1C via my DV camera. My goal was to save them on SVCD or XVCD (XVCD is a non-supported, higher bitrate encoding that only plays on some DVD players). I have tried all sorts of settings, but have found that by far the biggest issue to getting good encoding results is to have clean source material. MPEG encoders definitely do not like dealing with material that has been telecined (converted from 24 fps film to 29.97 fps video). You MUST perform inverse telecine prior to encoding such material, and then encode it at 24 fps (your DVD player -- whether standalone or in your computer -- will convert it back to 29.97 fps during playback). Doing the inverse telecine makes a HUGE difference, if the original source was film. For encoding videos shot directly on DV (i.e., your normal home videos), you must have noise-free video. Even then, the motion and shake will create lots of little "dancing bugs" around dark/light edges in the picture.

I suspect that this problem ("dancing bugs") may be an issue with ALL MPEG encoders when using DV as source material. I recently attended a seminar put on by Pinnacle and several other video vendors. During the break, I asked their experts whether any of their DVD encoding software would let me create a DVD that, when projected side-by-side with the original DV source, would be virtually indistinguishable. The answer was definitely not. The reason: No one sells the software or hardware that can do all the multi-pass tricks that Hollywood does when creating DVD movies. While you CAN get encoders that perform multiple passes (TMPGEnc even has a primitive two-pass capability), these additional passes are usually only trying to figure out the proper encoding rate for a VBR (variable bit rate) encoding in order to fit more minutes of video on a single disk (i.e., they look for places where the encoeding rate can be reduced without noticeable degradation). They really don't improve quality.

The dirty little secret of the current state-of-the-art DVD encoding for the consumer, and low-end commercial video producer, is that the quality is not as good as the original DV material. This is why, if you have ever sat through a trade-show demo of DV authoring, the entire demo is devoted to all the neat menus you can produce. Most of the time, they don't even mention the encoding issues, or the resulting quality.

Conclusion: For anything you want to keep for a long time, and where quality is important, keep the original DV tape. In a few years, the hardware and software WILL be able to do most of what Hollywood does when creating those pristine-looking DVDs and you can take that DV tape out of storage and create a near-perfect DVD.

Ahem.... please be silent at the back there...can you hear me....

The "Management of Expectations" - I think the sociologists also call it "Relative Deprivation" - you can give people more [more quality, more comparisons with the status quo etc etc] but you can't CAN NOT take it away from them.

So has it been - so shall it always be. Wait until the Hollywood standard comes to the budget end? Yeh okay - however there is creativity - there is and this IS what I can do now - and cheaply. We have the flexibility, which "others" don't. How many movies have you seen with tremendous effects and gizmos, costing zillions of $$$ or ££S or whatever your currency is and they are pooh!

Get out there and start filming and making movies, lots and lots of then - hey that's the fun part! [Yeah I rember trying to save up enough money to get my first celluloid fim stock together - oooh you don't know yer born you, you youngsters - yer lucky!]

Keep the faith and have fun... and maybe ... just maybe!

Sermon over - Now where did I put my manual on how to .......

Tarah

Grazie

Grazie:

Celluloid? You want celluloid??? You should see ex-girlfriend's legs.

PS: Again, guys, thanks for all the help. It's great to get clear, no-nonsense answers to problems in here.

brian