Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is WMV a better capture than AVI

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 5:53:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If I capture my video from my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder using MM2, it
gives me the option to capture it using much less HD space with the
WMV format. If my end goal is to save the videos to DVD and maintain
as high quality. Obviously saving the files in AVI takes up an
enormous amount of space.

Also, can I send this data directly to CD's or DVDs for storing the
unedited videos? And the later have quick easy access for capturing
back onto the HD and editing?

Just built a new system w/capturing, storing, editing, and burning my
home movies into DVD's.

I've got a 2.4 Mhz, 512 DDR, 40gb HD, and a back up 17gb HD,
w/firewire connection.

More about : wmv capture avi

Anonymous
May 9, 2004 7:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"KizerSosey" <vedivan6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad47583e.0405091253.28ea32f1@posting.google.com...
> If I capture my video from my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder using MM2, it
> gives me the option to capture it using much less HD space with the
> WMV format. If my end goal is to save the videos to DVD and maintain
> as high quality.

IMHO, WMV is NOT "high quality". It can be good/acceptable, etc.
but I would never describe it as "high quality". YMMV.

> Obviously saving the files in AVI takes up an enormous amount of space.
You get what you pay for.

> Also, can I send this data directly to CD's or DVDs for storing the
> unedited videos?

Yes.

> And the later have quick easy access for capturing
> back onto the HD and editing?

Do you have editing software than INputs WMV files?

> Just built a new system w/capturing, storing, editing, and burning my
> home movies into DVD's.

WMV is OK if it preserves sufficient quality for your application.
But it is essentially a play-only format. Dunno of any way to import
it to use it for any future editing. If I have video that I ever intend to
use for future editing, I bite the bullet and store in AVI.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 1:21:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (9 May 2004 13:53:06 -0700) it happened vedivan6@hotmail.com
(KizerSosey) wrote in <ad47583e.0405091253.28ea32f1@posting.google.com>:

>If I capture my video from my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder using MM2, it
>gives me the option to capture it using much less HD space with the
>WMV format. If my end goal is to save the videos to DVD and maintain
>as high quality. Obviously saving the files in AVI takes up an
>enormous amount of space.
Not correct, AVI can for example contain DivX, its compression would
make really small files.
Uncompressed AVI files are big.
If you want to do editing later, store uncompressed perhaps.
Else compres to DivX, (codec at www.divx.com) or wmv or mpeg2.

If you use DVD ISO9660 filesystem, you can store on DVD in any format,
including WMV, and copy back to harddisk later.
If you however want to play the DVD in a standalone player, then you
will have to use mpeg2, and a DVD authoring program.


>Also, can I send this data directly to CD's or DVDs for storing the
>unedited videos? And the later have quick easy access for capturing
>back onto the HD and editing?
Same, use the DVD as data disk.


>Just built a new system w/capturing, storing, editing, and burning my
>home movies into DVD's.
Many times even DVD will not be big enough.In such a case (and in case of CD)
I use simple binary split, save as data disk.
In Linux binary split is easy (with dd) and you can 'cat' the CD's
together agian, so you do not have to worry about the splicepoint.
In MS windows I know about a DOS command...
Some one else fill that in.


>
>I've got a 2.4 Mhz, 512 DDR, 40gb HD, and a back up 17gb HD,
>w/firewire connection.
Not much diskspace!
JP
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 1:21:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> >I've got a 2.4 Mhz, 512 DDR, 40gb HD, and a back up 17gb HD,
> >w/firewire connection.
> Not much diskspace!

I agree with Jan, get really need another hd in addtion to the one you
have now. A week or so ago you could get a Western Digital 120 gig for
less than $30, see fatwallet.com.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 3:07:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 9 May 2004 13:53:06 -0700, vedivan6@hotmail.com (KizerSosey) wrote:

>If I capture my video from my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder using MM2, it
>gives me the option to capture it using much less HD space with the
>WMV format. If my end goal is to save the videos to DVD and maintain
>as high quality. Obviously saving the files in AVI takes up an
>enormous amount of space.

Generally speaking, quality takes space.

Note however that AVI isn't one format. It's an umbrella that can
contain all manner of bit-rates, many systems and degrees of
compression. For instance, Div-X compressed files (which can look
very good) will be saved as AVI.

MM2 is, I presume, offering an uncompressed AVI format.
May 10, 2004 4:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:109tb2ofmjd7ic9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "KizerSosey" <vedivan6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ad47583e.0405091253.28ea32f1@posting.google.com...
> > If I capture my video from my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder using MM2, it
> > gives me the option to capture it using much less HD space with the
> > WMV format. If my end goal is to save the videos to DVD and maintain
> > as high quality.
>
>
> WMV is OK if it preserves sufficient quality for your application.
> But it is essentially a play-only format. Dunno of any way to import
> it to use it for any future editing. If I have video that I ever intend
to
> use for future editing, I bite the bullet and store in AVI.

I've imported WMV files for editing in Movie Maker 2 and Power Director 3.
But I also bite the bullet and store in AVI.

Rich
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 4:48:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"KizerSosey" <vedivan6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad47583e.0405091253.28ea32f1@posting.google.com...
> If I capture my video from my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder using MM2, it
> gives me the option to capture it using much less HD space with the
> WMV format. If my end goal is to save the videos to DVD and maintain
> as high quality. Obviously saving the files in AVI takes up an
> enormous amount of space.

WMV is acceptable for viewing on a computer, the internet, etc. It is not
capable of producing a good enough image for viewing on a television (unless
you think sub-VHS-quality looks good). Get a bigger hard drive, they're
dirt cheap. Archive the video on the tapes on which they were shot (never
re-use tapes, anyway -- it's an invitation to dropouts and excessive camera
head wear). Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of high-quality
video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).


>
> Also, can I send this data directly to CD's or DVDs for storing the
> unedited videos? And the later have quick easy access for capturing
> back onto the HD and editing?

DV25, which is the standard for miniDV/Digital8, requires about 13
Gigabytes/hour. A single-layer DVD holds 4.7 Gigabytes, or a little over
20 minutes of uncompressed video. Sony has introduced a dual-layer burner
that will put 8.7 G of data on a single DVD (though, at least at the onset,
dual-layer DVD-Rs will be rather expensive. This is still nowhere near
enough realistic storage space. A CD will hold 800 M, at most. Neither CD
nor DVD are appropriate storage media for digital video.

>
> Just built a new system w/capturing, storing, editing, and burning my
> home movies into DVD's.
>
> I've got a 2.4 Mhz, 512 DDR, 40gb HD, and a back up 17gb HD,
> w/firewire connection.

Your CPU and memory are fine (if you want to use something more powerful
than Movie Maker software, you might want to consider overclocking your
system a bit -- Adobe recommends a 3 GHz P4 for Premiere). Your hard drive
capacity is inadequate. My system, which I use for video editing, has 3/4
of a terabyte of hard drive storage. I find that adquate for what I do,
which is producing 2-hour finished projects from between 6 to 9 hours of raw
video -- I usually have more than one project going at the same time.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 5:35:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.

I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed that I
probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data rate
of 6000 kbps). When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
though the frame rate is the same.

I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to this
stuff. :) 

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:gjAnc.65593$DM.63392@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
> DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of
high-quality
> video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 5:42:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I've used TMPGEnc with pretty good result. There is probably better stuff
out there but if you're on a limited budget, at least give a try since you
get 30 days for free.

Good luck

"Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:l%Anc.8610$CC4.3176724@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
> comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.
>
> I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed that
I
> probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data rate
> of 6000 kbps). When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
> noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
> though the frame rate is the same.
>
> I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to this
> stuff. :) 
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:gjAnc.65593$DM.63392@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
> > DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of
> high-quality
> > video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 5:52:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:l%Anc.8610$CC4.3176724@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
> comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.

If you're asking which transcoder is good, Tmpgenc is excellent,
inexpensive, but very, very slow at the high-quality settings. Ligos is
excellent, very expensive, and fairly fast. Main Concept is quite good,
reasonably priced, and reasonably fast.

If the question is more basic, i.e. what is a transcoder, video DVD compress
video using the MPEG2 format. The DV25 standard (the "native" digital
format) already includes a compression factor of about 5, though it isn't
considered "compressed" because its what you get right out of the camera.
MPEG2 introduces additional compression up to a factor of 8 or more. It is
a "lossy" compression format, in that what comes out doesn't include all the
information which went in. Transcoders convert one video format (in this
case, DV-codec AVI) to another (in this case, MPEG2). A good transcoder can
compress with less _apparent_ loss of data than a poorer one. Conversion to
MPEG2 always requires a trade-off -- you can have fast conversion done
poorly, or poor conversion done quickly. There's also a tradeoff between
price and quality -- generally cheaper transcoders, including those that are
hard-coded into editing programs, don't do as good a job as more expensive
ones that are stand-alone products. Tmpgenc is the exception; a license
costs about $40 or so, and this transcoder will produce the highest quality
MPEG2 video of anything short of a studio hardware solution. It is,
however, notoriously slow. I use it for most of my work. To give some idea
of how slow, at its highest quality settings (which are all that I use), it
will take 12-15 hours to transcode 2 hours of AVI on my 3 GHz 512 Meg/RAM P4
machine. My older machine, a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP, would take a full 24-30
hours. When I first started doing NLE video, I used a 500 MHz machine that
took three days for tmpgenc to transcode 2 hours of material.


>
> I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed that
I
> probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data rate
> of 6000 kbps).

Hmmmm. 2 hours is pushing it at 6k CBR -- I usually wind up in the low 5ks
for that much material. Try VBR (though don't bother unless it's atleast
2-pass).

> When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
> noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
> though the frame rate is the same.

There's no difference in frame rate, though there is a difference in how
often individual pixels get updated. 4K will produce a noticeably-degraded
image, though still a very viewable. At 5k and above, most people won't see
a difference.

>
> I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to this
> stuff. :) 

No problem. That's what these newsgroups are for.

>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:gjAnc.65593$DM.63392@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
> > DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of
> high-quality
> > video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 6:21:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks a lot for your response - it was highly informative and I learned a
lot from it. I honestly don't recall if I used CBR or VBR when I encoded.
Would you think that a VBR of 5k for 2 hours of material should produce
acceptable quality? The other thing I'll keep in mind (that I just learned
about via a Google search) is the frame type. I think Ulead's VS encoding
might have been set to frame-based instead of Field Order A, which I
understand is better for final output to be shown on a television.

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:ifBnc.65603$d%.47358@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> There's no difference in frame rate, though there is a difference in how
> often individual pixels get updated. 4K will produce a
noticeably-degraded
> image, though still a very viewable. At 5k and above, most people won't
see
> a difference.
>
> >
> > I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to
this
> > stuff. :) 
>
> No problem. That's what these newsgroups are for.
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 6:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

PTRAVEL,

As posted previously, I've used TMPGEnc for some time. I've limited my
content to one hour per DVD and used CBR 8000 kbps. This gives me some
headroom and high audio quality. This typically takes me 2-2,5 hours with an
Athlon 1900+ and 1 Gig of RAM. The filters (like noise) slows this down a
lot and I haven't seen much different when watching it on my TV set.
However, I would like to know what settings you have used that you think is
worth while waiting for.

Thanks in advance

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:ifBnc.65603$d%.47358@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> news:l%Anc.8610$CC4.3176724@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
> > comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.
>
> If you're asking which transcoder is good, Tmpgenc is excellent,
> inexpensive, but very, very slow at the high-quality settings. Ligos is
> excellent, very expensive, and fairly fast. Main Concept is quite good,
> reasonably priced, and reasonably fast.
>
> If the question is more basic, i.e. what is a transcoder, video DVD
compress
> video using the MPEG2 format. The DV25 standard (the "native" digital
> format) already includes a compression factor of about 5, though it isn't
> considered "compressed" because its what you get right out of the camera.
> MPEG2 introduces additional compression up to a factor of 8 or more. It
is
> a "lossy" compression format, in that what comes out doesn't include all
the
> information which went in. Transcoders convert one video format (in this
> case, DV-codec AVI) to another (in this case, MPEG2). A good transcoder
can
> compress with less _apparent_ loss of data than a poorer one. Conversion
to
> MPEG2 always requires a trade-off -- you can have fast conversion done
> poorly, or poor conversion done quickly. There's also a tradeoff between
> price and quality -- generally cheaper transcoders, including those that
are
> hard-coded into editing programs, don't do as good a job as more expensive
> ones that are stand-alone products. Tmpgenc is the exception; a license
> costs about $40 or so, and this transcoder will produce the highest
quality
> MPEG2 video of anything short of a studio hardware solution. It is,
> however, notoriously slow. I use it for most of my work. To give some
idea
> of how slow, at its highest quality settings (which are all that I use),
it
> will take 12-15 hours to transcode 2 hours of AVI on my 3 GHz 512 Meg/RAM
P4
> machine. My older machine, a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP, would take a full 24-30
> hours. When I first started doing NLE video, I used a 500 MHz machine
that
> took three days for tmpgenc to transcode 2 hours of material.
>
>
> >
> > I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed
that
> I
> > probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data
rate
> > of 6000 kbps).
>
> Hmmmm. 2 hours is pushing it at 6k CBR -- I usually wind up in the low
5ks
> for that much material. Try VBR (though don't bother unless it's atleast
> 2-pass).
>
> > When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
> > noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
> > though the frame rate is the same.
>
> There's no difference in frame rate, though there is a difference in how
> often individual pixels get updated. 4K will produce a
noticeably-degraded
> image, though still a very viewable. At 5k and above, most people won't
see
> a difference.
>
> >
> > I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to
this
> > stuff. :) 
>
> No problem. That's what these newsgroups are for.
>
> >
> > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > news:gjAnc.65593$DM.63392@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
> > > DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of
> > high-quality
> > > video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 8:34:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:0HBnc.8683$CC4.3310193@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Thanks a lot for your response - it was highly informative and I learned a
> lot from it. I honestly don't recall if I used CBR or VBR when I encoded.
> Would you think that a VBR of 5k for 2 hours of material should produce
> acceptable quality?

"Acceptable" means different things to different people. I get reasonable
video this way that is acceptable enough for things like the "family"
version of my travel videos, i.e. the DVDs I keep for my wife and myself and
send to my in-laws. I'd be reluctant to use it for a commercial release.
Note, too, that, unless you're doing 2-pass or better VBR, you might as well
stick with CBR.

If you use tmpgenc, there is a built in calculator that lets you maximize
bit rate based on your target, i.e. there's a slider that plots bit rate
against projected file size.

> The other thing I'll keep in mind (that I just learned
> about via a Google search) is the frame type. I think Ulead's VS encoding
> might have been set to frame-based instead of Field Order A, which I
> understand is better for final output to be shown on a television.

Field order matters to this extent: get them reversed and you'll have
jittery, jerky video. Field order doesn't have any effect on resolution.

>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:ifBnc.65603$d%.47358@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > There's no difference in frame rate, though there is a difference in how
> > often individual pixels get updated. 4K will produce a
> noticeably-degraded
> > image, though still a very viewable. At 5k and above, most people won't
> see
> > a difference.
> >
> > >
> > > I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to
> this
> > > stuff. :) 
> >
> > No problem. That's what these newsgroups are for.
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 8:36:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Lindsten" <lindsten@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CVBnc.73578$Dn1.67751@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> PTRAVEL,
>
> As posted previously, I've used TMPGEnc for some time. I've limited my
> content to one hour per DVD and used CBR 8000 kbps. This gives me some
> headroom and high audio quality.

That reminds -- set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits. This is,
technically, not DVD standard, but I haven't found a DVD player yet that
can't handle it. The audio quality is better than CD, and you'll save an
enormous amount of space.


> This typically takes me 2-2,5 hours with an
> Athlon 1900+ and 1 Gig of RAM.

What motion level are you setting? That's nice and fast.

> The filters (like noise) slows this down a
> lot and I haven't seen much different when watching it on my TV set.

I don't bother with the filters -- I don't think they do much.

> However, I would like to know what settings you have used that you think
is
> worth while waiting for.

They're the settings from the website that I posted in this thread, along
with motion setting at the highest quality level.

>
> Thanks in advance
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:ifBnc.65603$d%.47358@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:l%Anc.8610$CC4.3176724@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
> > > comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.
> >
> > If you're asking which transcoder is good, Tmpgenc is excellent,
> > inexpensive, but very, very slow at the high-quality settings. Ligos is
> > excellent, very expensive, and fairly fast. Main Concept is quite good,
> > reasonably priced, and reasonably fast.
> >
> > If the question is more basic, i.e. what is a transcoder, video DVD
> compress
> > video using the MPEG2 format. The DV25 standard (the "native" digital
> > format) already includes a compression factor of about 5, though it
isn't
> > considered "compressed" because its what you get right out of the
camera.
> > MPEG2 introduces additional compression up to a factor of 8 or more. It
> is
> > a "lossy" compression format, in that what comes out doesn't include all
> the
> > information which went in. Transcoders convert one video format (in
this
> > case, DV-codec AVI) to another (in this case, MPEG2). A good transcoder
> can
> > compress with less _apparent_ loss of data than a poorer one.
Conversion
> to
> > MPEG2 always requires a trade-off -- you can have fast conversion done
> > poorly, or poor conversion done quickly. There's also a tradeoff
between
> > price and quality -- generally cheaper transcoders, including those that
> are
> > hard-coded into editing programs, don't do as good a job as more
expensive
> > ones that are stand-alone products. Tmpgenc is the exception; a license
> > costs about $40 or so, and this transcoder will produce the highest
> quality
> > MPEG2 video of anything short of a studio hardware solution. It is,
> > however, notoriously slow. I use it for most of my work. To give some
> idea
> > of how slow, at its highest quality settings (which are all that I use),
> it
> > will take 12-15 hours to transcode 2 hours of AVI on my 3 GHz 512
Meg/RAM
> P4
> > machine. My older machine, a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP, would take a full 24-30
> > hours. When I first started doing NLE video, I used a 500 MHz machine
> that
> > took three days for tmpgenc to transcode 2 hours of material.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed
> that
> > I
> > > probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data
> rate
> > > of 6000 kbps).
> >
> > Hmmmm. 2 hours is pushing it at 6k CBR -- I usually wind up in the low
> 5ks
> > for that much material. Try VBR (though don't bother unless it's
atleast
> > 2-pass).
> >
> > > When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
> > > noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
> > > though the frame rate is the same.
> >
> > There's no difference in frame rate, though there is a difference in how
> > often individual pixels get updated. 4K will produce a
> noticeably-degraded
> > image, though still a very viewable. At 5k and above, most people won't
> see
> > a difference.
> >
> > >
> > > I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to
> this
> > > stuff. :) 
> >
> > No problem. That's what these newsgroups are for.
> >
> > >
> > > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > > news:gjAnc.65593$DM.63392@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > Edit using the DV codec and AVI. Burn your finished video to
> > > > DVD as properly-transcoded MPEG2 (you can easily get 2 hours of
> > > high-quality
> > > > video on a DVD if you use a good transcoder).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 2:47:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 02:21:48 GMT, "Jon Rosenbaum" <nobody@home.com>
wrote:

>Would you think that a VBR of 5k for 2 hours of material should produce
>acceptable quality?

That would give you better than Vcd quality starting from good
material -but then, the latter depends on the Wmv quality you start
with.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 2:51:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:36:55 GMT, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
wrote:

> set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits. This is,
>technically, not DVD standard, but I haven't found a DVD player yet that
>can't handle it. The audio quality is better than CD

CD is PCM, which is lossless, while mpeg is lossy -and thus
necessarily worse (even if good enough).

>> The filters (like noise) slows this down a
>> lot and I haven't seen much different when watching it on my TV set.
>
>I don't bother with the filters -- I don't think they do much.

Filters can work marvels, but they are more an art than a science.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 2:51:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bariloche <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message news:<ndgu909i7ul5bm8t9laj4l4313ncokeogg@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:36:55 GMT, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
>
> > set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits.

Is this the same as layer 1? In which case it should be worse, for a
given bit-rate than layer 2 or 3. Layer 2 is only used in legacy
systems or where processing power/time are limited. I've not heard
layer 1, to my knowledge, but it must be ancient. The heirarchy of
decoders is supposed to ensure that a higher number is capable of
decoding lower numbered layers. This is broken by many mp3 players
however.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong ;o)

Alex
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 2:51:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alex Bird" <alex@redbeastie.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c133d118.0405100817.18065285@posting.google.com...
> Bariloche <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
news:<ndgu909i7ul5bm8t9laj4l4313ncokeogg@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:36:55 GMT, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits.
>
> Is this the same as layer 1?

Yes, sorry -- something slipped between my brain and my hands when I wrote
this.

> In which case it should be worse, for a
> given bit-rate than layer 2 or 3.

Agreed, but it still works just fine.

> Layer 2 is only used in legacy
> systems or where processing power/time are limited. I've not heard
> layer 1, to my knowledge, but it must be ancient. The heirarchy of
> decoders is supposed to ensure that a higher number is capable of
> decoding lower numbered layers. This is broken by many mp3 players
> however.
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong ;o)
>
> Alex
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 4:17:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
news:ndgu909i7ul5bm8t9laj4l4313ncokeogg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:36:55 GMT, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
>
> > set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits. This is,
> >technically, not DVD standard, but I haven't found a DVD player yet that
> >can't handle it. The audio quality is better than CD
>
> CD is PCM, which is lossless, while mpeg is lossy -and thus
> necessarily worse (even if good enough).

You're right to the extent that MPEG is lossy. Nonetheless, the sampling
frequency rate is higher, resulting in a higher maximum Nyquist frequency,
so frequency range is broader.

>
> >> The filters (like noise) slows this down a
> >> lot and I haven't seen much different when watching it on my TV set.
> >
> >I don't bother with the filters -- I don't think they do much.
>
> Filters can work marvels, but they are more an art than a science.

Unless you are applying filters on a per-scene basis, there is little point
to them, and I don't know anyone with the time or patience to break a
project into separate scenes, transcode separately and then reassemble. As
for working marvels, starting with good source video to begin with precludes
the need.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 9:02:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Mon, 10 May 2004 01:35:13 GMT) it happened "Jon Rosenbaum"
<nobody@home.com> wrote in <l%Anc.8610$CC4.3176724@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>:

>As I'm a newbie, I was wondering if you could please elaborate on your
>comment below and explain what a good MPEG2 transcoder is.
>
>I had 2 hours of AVI video that ULead's VideoStudio software claimed that I
>probably couldn't fit onto a single DVD at "Good" quality (video data rate
>of 6000 kbps). When I made the burn at 4000 kpbs, it came out ok though I
>noticed on a larger television the video appears more like a film even
>though the frame rate is the same.
>
>I apologize in advance if these concepts are trivial, but I'm new to this
>stuff. :) 

It may re-assure you to know that satellite digital TV in Europe transmits
720x576 at 25 fps mpeg2 with about 4500kbps.
And it looks great.
JP
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 9:07:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Mon, 10 May 2004 04:36:55 GMT) it happened "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in
<HFDnc.65627$uV1.41328@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>:


>That reminds -- set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits. This is,
That would be kbps (kilo bits per second).

>technically, not DVD standard, but I haven't found a DVD player yet that
But it is a DVD standard.

>can't handle it. The audio quality is better than CD, and you'll save an
No, not better then CD!

>enormous amount of space.
True

>What motion level are you setting? That's nice and fast.
>
>> The filters (like noise) slows this down a
>> lot and I haven't seen much different when watching it on my TV set.
>
>I don't bother with the filters -- I don't think they do much.
If the source material is noisy, using a low pass may significally
decrease file length.
If the source was digital it may make little difference.
(Depends on some other factors too).
JP
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 9:10:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Mon, 10 May 2004 12:17:52 GMT) it happened "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in
<QpKnc.65667$LJ3.54775@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>:

>
>"Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
>news:ndgu909i7ul5bm8t9laj4l4313ncokeogg@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:36:55 GMT, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > set the audio to MPEG2, level 1, 228 bits. This is,
>> >technically, not DVD standard, but I haven't found a DVD player yet that
>> >can't handle it. The audio quality is better than CD
>>
>> CD is PCM, which is lossless, while mpeg is lossy -and thus
>> necessarily worse (even if good enough).
>
>You're right to the extent that MPEG is lossy. Nonetheless, the sampling
>frequency rate is higher, resulting in a higher maximum Nyquist frequency,
>so frequency range is broader.
48000 versus 44100, so with luck 48000 will allow 23kHz, nobody can hear
that but a dog or singing bird.
Do you use oxygen free copper cable for the speakers too ;-)?
And tube amp of cause ?

JP
!