Converting .avi to mpeg2 - faster rendering?

[Guest]

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

When using a DVD re authoring program, is there any need to convert
files to mpeg2? Or should I let the application do it?

I thought converting files to mpeg2 would make the rendering process
faster. True or not?

I noticed for one of my .avi files the sound was sampled at 44khz
(something like 126 bit?). If I convert this to mpeg2 or let a dvd
authoring program take over - will it convert the audio to the right
sampling (48khz).

I have been having problems with audio being out of sync with video -
maybe this is the reason?

Thanks,

Tmuld.

 

[rs]

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

Files for DVD authoring must be in Mpg2 720x480 format. The rendering codecs
included with authoring programs are usually not the best or the fastest.

Convert to mpg2 format before authoring. Cinemacraft Encoder is good.
Tmpgenc is decent.


"Tavish Muldoon" <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote in message
news:e2470f35.0501310731.5da896d@posting.google.com...
> When using a DVD re authoring program, is there any need to convert
> files to mpeg2? Or should I let the application do it?
>
> I thought converting files to mpeg2 would make the rendering process
> faster. True or not?
>
> I noticed for one of my .avi files the sound was sampled at 44khz
> (something like 126 bit?). If I convert this to mpeg2 or let a dvd
> authoring program take over - will it convert the audio to the right
> sampling (48khz).
>
> I have been having problems with audio being out of sync with video -
> maybe this is the reason?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tmuld.

 

[Guest]

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

> "Tavish Muldoon" <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote in message
> news:e2470f35.0501310731.5da896d@posting.google.com...
>> When using a DVD re authoring program, is there any need to convert
>> files to mpeg2? Or should I let the application do it?
>>
>> I thought converting files to mpeg2 would make the rendering process
>> faster. True or not?
>>
>> I noticed for one of my .avi files the sound was sampled at 44khz
>> (something like 126 bit?). If I convert this to mpeg2 or let a dvd
>> authoring program take over - will it convert the audio to the right
>> sampling (48khz).
>>
>> I have been having problems with audio being out of sync with video -
>> maybe this is the reason?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tmuld.
>

"RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
news:41fe6af3$1_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Files for DVD authoring must be in Mpg2 720x480 format. The rendering
> codecs
> included with authoring programs are usually not the best or the fastest.
>
> Convert to mpg2 format before authoring. Cinemacraft Encoder is good.
> Tmpgenc is decent.
>


The DVD Standard supports several formats besides 720x480.

MPEG1:
NTSC 352x240 / PAL 352x288

MPEG2:
NTSC
352x240 /(352x480 IMHO the Best for most home sources and
a normal analog display [Interlaced TV])
704x480 / 720x480

PAL
352x288 / 352x576
704x576 / 720x576

Audio:
MPEG-1 Audio Layer2(.mp2)
Dolby Digital Audio AC-3 (.ac3)
Linear PCM (.wav)

The Audio handling in TEMPGEnc DVD Author (TDA) works
just fine with any of the above formats, and will convert sample
rates to 48k.

To the OP; you appear to be addressing two different situations.

One using DVD as a source, in which case a good DVD author
program can use unencrypted DVD as the source for a new
DVD. If you have DVDShrink make a VIDEO_TS folder, on
your hard drive, the author program should be able extract the
MPEG data for a new DVD.

The other, you have .avi files, now a days AVI could mean
anything, in terms of the video and audio format it carries. In
any case you will need to convert these at some point to a
DVD compatible MPEG like described above. There are
programs like DVDSanta and WinAVI that can make this a
simpler task. The process that gives you the most control
is to use an MPEG Encoder like one of the TMPGEnc
Encoders. www.pegasys-inc.com Then feed the result to
an Author Program, like TDA. (Some like DVDLab)

There are many possible causes for "sync problems",
most often it will take some effort to track the actual
source of the problem down. I've found it handy to have
a copy of VideoReDo on hand. www.VideoReDo.com

Luck;
Ken

 

[rs]

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

Were you wanting to be picky, or we're you wanting to answer a beginners
question? This person is just starting out and thowing DVD standards Volume
1-5 is not going to help them any.




"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ktCdndyVcZmqCGPcRVn-tw@giganews.com...
>
> > "Tavish Muldoon" <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote in message
> > news:e2470f35.0501310731.5da896d@posting.google.com...
> >> When using a DVD re authoring program, is there any need to convert
> >> files to mpeg2? Or should I let the application do it?
> >>
> >> I thought converting files to mpeg2 would make the rendering process
> >> faster. True or not?
> >>
> >> I noticed for one of my .avi files the sound was sampled at 44khz
> >> (something like 126 bit?). If I convert this to mpeg2 or let a dvd
> >> authoring program take over - will it convert the audio to the right
> >> sampling (48khz).
> >>
> >> I have been having problems with audio being out of sync with video -
> >> maybe this is the reason?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Tmuld.
> >
>
> "RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:41fe6af3$1_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
> > Files for DVD authoring must be in Mpg2 720x480 format. The rendering
> > codecs
> > included with authoring programs are usually not the best or the
fastest.
> >
> > Convert to mpg2 format before authoring. Cinemacraft Encoder is good.
> > Tmpgenc is decent.
> >
>
>
> The DVD Standard supports several formats besides 720x480.
>
> MPEG1:
> NTSC 352x240 / PAL 352x288
>
> MPEG2:
> NTSC
> 352x240 /(352x480 IMHO the Best for most home sources and
> a normal analog display [Interlaced TV])
> 704x480 / 720x480
>
> PAL
> 352x288 / 352x576
> 704x576 / 720x576
>
> Audio:
> MPEG-1 Audio Layer2(.mp2)
> Dolby Digital Audio AC-3 (.ac3)
> Linear PCM (.wav)
>
> The Audio handling in TEMPGEnc DVD Author (TDA) works
> just fine with any of the above formats, and will convert sample
> rates to 48k.
>
> To the OP; you appear to be addressing two different situations.
>
> One using DVD as a source, in which case a good DVD author
> program can use unencrypted DVD as the source for a new
> DVD. If you have DVDShrink make a VIDEO_TS folder, on
> your hard drive, the author program should be able extract the
> MPEG data for a new DVD.
>
> The other, you have .avi files, now a days AVI could mean
> anything, in terms of the video and audio format it carries. In
> any case you will need to convert these at some point to a
> DVD compatible MPEG like described above. There are
> programs like DVDSanta and WinAVI that can make this a
> simpler task. The process that gives you the most control
> is to use an MPEG Encoder like one of the TMPGEnc
> Encoders. www.pegasys-inc.com Then feed the result to
> an Author Program, like TDA. (Some like DVDLab)
>
> There are many possible causes for "sync problems",
> most often it will take some effort to track the actual
> source of the problem down. I've found it handy to have
> a copy of VideoReDo on hand. www.VideoReDo.com
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
news:41fea606$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Were you wanting to be picky, or we're you wanting to answer a beginners
> question? This person is just starting out and thowing DVD standards
> Volume
> 1-5 is not going to help them any.
>

You could have read my whole post. As to the problem with
stating that DVD = 720x480, aside from the fact that it ignores
at least half the world, is that it is not the best format for home
users. The 352x480 NTSC/352x576PAL format commonly
called "Half D1" (you can pick at that if you want) is a much
better match to a beginner's resources than the 720x480.

Luck;
Ken

 

[rs]

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

For a DVD. They are probably using XYZ software package which might not give
the the ability to use a size other than usualy expected.

Ok, I'll bite. Why is the HalfD1 a better choice?


"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5YGdnU1aSLfpKGPcRVn-gA@giganews.com...
>
> "RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:41fea606$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> > Were you wanting to be picky, or we're you wanting to answer a beginners
> > question? This person is just starting out and thowing DVD standards
> > Volume
> > 1-5 is not going to help them any.
> >
>
> You could have read my whole post. As to the problem with
> stating that DVD = 720x480, aside from the fact that it ignores
> at least half the world, is that it is not the best format for home
> users. The 352x480 NTSC/352x576PAL format commonly
> called "Half D1" (you can pick at that if you want) is a much
> better match to a beginner's resources than the 720x480.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
news:41feb709$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> For a DVD. They are probably using XYZ software package which might not
> give
> the the ability to use a size other than usualy expected.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Why is the HalfD1 a better choice?
>
>

Ok; consider the following:
(using NTSC)

1. Most of us are using and will continue to use an Analog Interlaced
TV to watch our video.

2. Most of us have only analog interlaced (S-video or composite)
sources (TV, DVR, Sat Receiver, VCR, LaserDisk, ect...).

The above means that you need to use MPEG 2 that includes the
"480" component of the formats in the standard, so that Interlace
will be properly handled, and preserved. While there is no direct
comparison between the Analog Signal and the concepts of Image
Size and Resolution as it is applied to DVD format or a digital
display, the 352x480 comes much closer to the extractable image
data available from such analog signals than the 780x480.

3. Most users, beginners especially, have modest single processor
systems that are not optimized for the tasks involved. Minor
latency and/or throughput issues can have impacts during capture,
and video processing that aren't noticed when engaged in other tasks.

There are a number of posts that will testify to the Phenomenon
were they have "drop outs", lip sync errors, video artifacts and other
issues when they try to capture or encode at 720x480 that they don't
see when they use 352x480. Part of the reason for that is the result
of the difference in "Bits Per Pixel" at the file sizes most users want/
need to use. You must use a very high bitrate to achieve any decent
"Bits Per Pixel" figures with 720x480, and in doing so, often exceeds
what the average unoptimized system can handle, without producing
errors. With 352x480 on the other hand you can use much lower
bitrates (less than half) and still have "Bits Per Pixel" over 0.25
(increases over that produce very little benefit). This places much
less stress on the overall capabilities of the system.

You might look up an old, but kept current, utility called "Aspect"
it's a sorta advanced bitrate calculator, that will show the "Bits Per
Pixel" figure for the video and audio parameters you enter.

This should be enough to give you the idea.

Luck;
Ken