Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

720x480 w/drops or 640x480 no droped frames?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 25, 2004 1:23:20 AM

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

I am finally back up and running under XP. I am capturing w/virtualdub
through a AIW Radeon. When I capture at 720x480 MJpic codec @ 18 or 19 I get
the occasional dropped frame. Upon replay, it appears worse than the 3-6
frames dropped would suggest - but that could be me. If I drop to 640x480
everything else the same, I get 0 dropped frames. Right now I'm just
watching it on screen but would like to start capturing video for DVD
output. (home movies). And yes its an Hi8 analog. I've always tried to
capture at the absolute best resolution even though analog is 360x240 I
figure I can output lower format later if necessary and not really 'loose'
anything.

I also edit my stuff with Premiere 6 (I have Premiere Pro but cannot get it
to work w/my AMD processor - another story) to have simple transitions &
fades & soundtrack. So I will be rendering the video. not just clipping
commercials/segments and going to DVD.

My question:
Am I thinking right? is this overkill? should I just capture @360x240 (or
even 350x480) for DVD compliancy? is there any advantages to this? or
disadvantages to capturing at 640x480? other than having to render it at a
different resolution for output?

Thanks for all your inputs.
Jeff

"Good judgment comes from experience. Unfortunately, experience comes from
bad judgment."
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 2:35:53 AM

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

> I am finally back up and running under XP. I am capturing w/virtualdub
> through a AIW Radeon. When I capture at 720x480 MJpic codec @ 18 or 19 I
get
> the occasional dropped frame. Upon replay, it appears worse than the 3-6
> frames dropped would suggest - but that could be me. If I drop to 640x480
> everything else the same, I get 0 dropped frames. Right now I'm just
> watching it on screen but would like to start capturing video for DVD
> output. (home movies). And yes its an Hi8 analog. I've always tried to
> capture at the absolute best resolution even though analog is 360x240 I
> figure I can output lower format later if necessary and not really 'loose'
> anything.
>
> I also edit my stuff with Premiere 6 (I have Premiere Pro but cannot get
it
> to work w/my AMD processor - another story) to have simple transitions &
> fades & soundtrack. So I will be rendering the video. not just clipping
> commercials/segments and going to DVD.
>
> My question:
> Am I thinking right? is this overkill? should I just capture @360x240 (or
> even 350x480) for DVD compliancy? is there any advantages to this? or
> disadvantages to capturing at 640x480? other than having to render it at a
> different resolution for output?
>
> Thanks for all your inputs.
> Jeff

These issues are always debated back and forth. Best to just try and do some
test encodes at different resolutions and see which ones you prefer. 360 and
350 horizontal are not supported for DVD, 352 is the one you want. I am a
big fan of 352x480, simply because you will never get close to commercial
DVD quality anyway, and 352x480 offers the best compromise between size and
quality, in my opinion.
August 25, 2004 6:24:01 PM

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

My bad - I did mean 352x480(352x240)

Thanks for your reply, I kind of figured the compromise was pushing me in
that direction, I really wanted to hear from others that came to the same
conclusion.

If I can ask: at 352x480 do you de-interlace your footage before editing? or
not at all if its going to be for TV display anyway?

Jeff

"Allan" <fghj@tyui.tyu> wrote in message
news:cggfs9$9hr$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > I am finally back up and running under XP. I am capturing w/virtualdub
> > through a AIW Radeon. When I capture at 720x480 MJpic codec @ 18 or 19 I
> get
> > the occasional dropped frame. Upon replay, it appears worse than the 3-6
> > frames dropped would suggest - but that could be me. If I drop to
640x480
> > everything else the same, I get 0 dropped frames. Right now I'm just
> > watching it on screen but would like to start capturing video for DVD
> > output. (home movies). And yes its an Hi8 analog. I've always tried to
> > capture at the absolute best resolution even though analog is 360x240 I
> > figure I can output lower format later if necessary and not really
'loose'
> > anything.
> >
> > I also edit my stuff with Premiere 6 (I have Premiere Pro but cannot get
> it
> > to work w/my AMD processor - another story) to have simple transitions &
> > fades & soundtrack. So I will be rendering the video. not just clipping
> > commercials/segments and going to DVD.
> >
> > My question:
> > Am I thinking right? is this overkill? should I just capture @360x240
(or
> > even 350x480) for DVD compliancy? is there any advantages to this? or
> > disadvantages to capturing at 640x480? other than having to render it at
a
> > different resolution for output?
> >
> > Thanks for all your inputs.
> > Jeff
>
> These issues are always debated back and forth. Best to just try and do
some
> test encodes at different resolutions and see which ones you prefer. 360
and
> 350 horizontal are not supported for DVD, 352 is the one you want. I am a
> big fan of 352x480, simply because you will never get close to commercial
> DVD quality anyway, and 352x480 offers the best compromise between size
and
> quality, in my opinion.
>
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 7:33:59 PM

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

> My bad - I did mean 352x480(352x240)
>
> Thanks for your reply, I kind of figured the compromise was pushing me in
> that direction, I really wanted to hear from others that came to the same
> conclusion.
>
> If I can ask: at 352x480 do you de-interlace your footage before editing?
or
> not at all if its going to be for TV display anyway?

Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,
never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,
never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,
never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,
never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,
never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, de-interlace
video for DVD :-) Well, unless you are deliberately going for that
wonderfully ghosted effect you get from deinterlacing. If your material is
60hz interlaced, leave it interlaced, if it's film, you can Inverse Telecine
to 23.976 fps, but if in doubt, leave it interlaced. 352 x 240 isn't too
happy about interlaced material, though, but 352 x 480 is just fine.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 9:47:58 PM

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

Snoopy wrote:

> If I can ask: at 352x480 do you de-interlace your footage before
> editing? or not at all if its going to be for TV display anyway?

No deinterlacing if it is going to be for TV display.

--
znark
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 12:29:49 AM

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

Allan wrote:

> 352 x 240 isn't too happy about interlaced material,
> though, but 352 x 480 is just fine.

352×240 (or the PAL equivalent, 352×288) does not support
interlaced video at all.

All ###×480 ("NTSC") or ###×576 ("PAL") formats do.

--
znark
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 12:29:50 AM

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

> > 352 x 240 isn't too happy about interlaced material,
> > though, but 352 x 480 is just fine.
>
> 352×240 (or the PAL equivalent, 352×288) does not support
> interlaced video at all.
>
> All ###×480 ("NTSC") or ###×576 ("PAL") formats do.

Well, that's not entirely true. You can encode an MPEG2 file at 352x240 as
interlaced, and although it's not supported under the official DVD specs,
some DVD players will play it back, just like some DVD players will play
other unsupported formats like 480x480, which was why I was a little bit
vague about dismissing it as an option, but it's definitely best avoided.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 6:12:55 PM

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

> frames dropped would suggest - but that could be me. If I drop to 640x480
> everything else the same, I get 0 dropped frames. Right now I'm just
> watching it on screen but would like to start capturing video for DVD

system specs?
some systems are simply too slow.

1) make sure the HD is optimized (defragged) first.
2) make sure DMA is turned on for this drive (device mgr->IDE controller)
3) kill all background virus scanners & apps

There should be no reason VirtualDub can't do a good job on a decent
system at D1 resolution (look at VD's author's website for what he's
been able to do on much slower systems than what's sold today).
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 2:49:31 AM

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

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:24:01 GMT, "Snoopy" <Snoopy is not@home.com>
wrote:

>If I can ask: at 352x480 do you de-interlace your footage before editing? or
>not at all if its going to be for TV display anyway?

Interlaced is meant for TV, so leave it as 352x480 interlaced.
August 27, 2004 5:35:37 PM

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

I agree, VD for me has been the best thing for capturing since sliced bread.
I was running WIN98SE and using AIW's vcr to capture and not liking anything
I got. Then I found VD (with the aid of this newsgroup thank you very much)
and could capture anything. Even at 720x480 w/ no drops or at most 1 to 5
but when played I could not even notice the dropped frames.

About 3 months ago I broke down and re-formatted the computer and installed
XP, DVD burner and future upping to Premiere Pro. Everything else remained
the same. And now I am starting to get the weird anomalies such as this.
Like I wrote earlier - I still only get a couple dropped frames but the
playback is horrendous - it looks like its dropping every 5th frame! so I
just figured it was my current combination of XP & drivers & the likes that
I unfortunately do not have the time to break down and reformat again.

But to confirm, yes I am shutting everything else down. I even determined
that my 2nd drive (80Gig) is faster than my new primary (120Gig) so I
capture to it. Wiped everything except maybe 10gig of files from the 80 and
did everything I know to clean it up.

Thanks to all who took the time to read (and listen to my whine) and those
who have offered suggestions.

Thanks
Jeff
System:
1 gig AMD; 512 Ram
ATI AIW-32meg Radeon
120G primary; 80G secondary
8x DVD+/-RRW
*so nothing fancy but works for me.


"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:cgljoi$ehu$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> > frames dropped would suggest - but that could be me. If I drop to
640x480
> > everything else the same, I get 0 dropped frames. Right now I'm just
> > watching it on screen but would like to start capturing video for DVD
>
> system specs?
> some systems are simply too slow.
>
> 1) make sure the HD is optimized (defragged) first.
> 2) make sure DMA is turned on for this drive (device mgr->IDE
controller)
> 3) kill all background virus scanners & apps
>
> There should be no reason VirtualDub can't do a good job on a decent
> system at D1 resolution (look at VD's author's website for what he's
> been able to do on much slower systems than what's sold today).
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 5:35:38 PM

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

> 1 gig AMD; 512 Ram
> ATI AIW-32meg Radeon
> 120G primary; 80G secondary
> 8x DVD+/-RRW

1Ghz maybe on the borderline. I remember having an older system, and
until I bumped it up to a 1.5Ghz P4, there was the rare glitch. At
500Mhz for sure, it wasn't possible (w/o optimization, prayers, etc) for
me w/o going into lots of tweaking.

The thing here is that the older AMD's weren't as powerful as rated,
so the 1Ghz AMD rating might be equivalent to a slower 800Mhz PIII on
intensive calculations.

Anyways, the problem here may also be that you've got two HDs on the
same IDE channel. Best to move the second HD to the primary on the
second IDE cable, with the DVD attached at the secondary on the second
IDE cable. This way, you can get the full IDE channel bandwidth for
writing data to the HD w/o interference from access commands to the
other HD.
August 28, 2004 1:58:30 AM

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

Darn IT!!! I just did it again. I am sorry David for the emails!!

David
Sorry for responding to your email - I hit the wrong button. I actually
have my 2nd hard drive on its own IDE also. My KT7 motherboard has a built
in RAID controller. My Primary 120 is on MB 1, My DVD drive & DVD+-RW are on
MB2 and my 80Gig is on the secondary IDE controller as a primary. And its
not linked to any other drives, just used as another device. but hey, after
I finish my house remodel I just might use all this as an excuse to convince
the wife to 'upgrade'. she'll be tired of hearing me bitch and complain by
then ;-)

Jeff

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:cgnt6c$5om$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> > 1 gig AMD; 512 Ram
> > ATI AIW-32meg Radeon
> > 120G primary; 80G secondary
> > 8x DVD+/-RRW
>
> 1Ghz maybe on the borderline. I remember having an older system, and
> until I bumped it up to a 1.5Ghz P4, there was the rare glitch. At
> 500Mhz for sure, it wasn't possible (w/o optimization, prayers, etc) for
> me w/o going into lots of tweaking.
>
> The thing here is that the older AMD's weren't as powerful as rated,
> so the 1Ghz AMD rating might be equivalent to a slower 800Mhz PIII on
> intensive calculations.
>
> Anyways, the problem here may also be that you've got two HDs on the
> same IDE channel. Best to move the second HD to the primary on the
> second IDE cable, with the DVD attached at the secondary on the second
> IDE cable. This way, you can get the full IDE channel bandwidth for
> writing data to the HD w/o interference from access commands to the
> other HD.
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 12:17:54 PM

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

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:35:37 GMT, "Snoopy" <Snoopy is not@home.com>
wrote:

>I was running WIN98SE

but also

>About 3 months ago I broke down and re-formatted the computer and installed
>XP

Which is a lot slower.

>I am shutting everything else down.

Including all those useless Windows "services"?
!