How long it will take to render 1h10min avi file to a DVD ..

[Guest]

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

Hi,

I was trying to render about 1h 10min avi file to a DVD format before
burining. The avi file is about 13G in size, and it took over 1hour and
it was only 37% finished, and I had to kill the program. My question is
how long does the regular DVD software to render such avi file?
Thanks.

 

[Guest]

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

<wenmang@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114010070.340133.43500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to render about 1h 10min avi file to a DVD format before
> burining. The avi file is about 13G in size, and it took over 1hour and
> it was only 37% finished, and I had to kill the program. My question is
> how long does the regular DVD software to render such avi file?
> Thanks.

There's no answer to this question. Transcode time (you transcode avi to
mpeg2, not render it) is a function of software, settings, CPU speed and
amount of available memory. As a point of reference, on my 3 GHz P4, using
tmpgenc to transcode (which is somewhat slow), tweaked to its highest output
settings, a 2-hour video takes 12 hours or more to transcode.

>

 

[Guest]

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

wenm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to render about 1h 10min avi file to a DVD format before
> burining. The avi file is about 13G in size, and it took over 1hour
and
> it was only 37% finished, and I had to kill the program. My question
is
> how long does the regular DVD software to render such avi file?
> Thanks.


Depends on your computer and software, but what you're describing
doesn't sound unusual, actually pretty quick. Takes a lot of horsepower
to do video stuff. What kind of system do you have? Processor speed,
etc.

I've found Pinnacle Studio seems to go a bit slower than Ulead DVD
Factory.

 

[Guest]

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

I am using Ulead Virtual Studio, my PC is Dell Dimension 3000 with P4
2.8G Hz. The other question that I have is, using Ulead, I tried to
capture video from Canon DV camcorder in mpeg format through a video
capture card(firewire), the video looks awful compared with the one in
avi format which unfortunately occupies around 12-13G HD for about
1hour recording. My Canon DV comcorder only has a DV output and I am
wondering what format that I can use instead of avi to capture video
without losing the quality of the video like avi.
Thanks

 

[rs]

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

wenmang@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to render about 1h 10min avi file to a DVD format before
> burining. The avi file is about 13G in size, and it took over 1hour and
> it was only 37% finished, and I had to kill the program. My question is
> how long does the regular DVD software to render such avi file?
> Thanks.
>
It will depend on.
1. Your processor speed
2. The encoder you are using
3. Whether the source avi has had any processor intensive effects and
transitiong added which will need to be rendered.

To give you a basis for comparison. I have a dual processor rig with two
AMD 2400's. If you had a 3+ pent processor, you'd probably be about as
fast really. If I feed an avi file which has had nothing done to it
beyond the capture to a DV file, I can render this pretty near to real
time or better using the Cinemea Craft Basic encoder if I use just a
single pass. If I use a two pass, variable bit rate encode it will take
about twice as long.

If your just throwing your material at your dvd authoring program and
asking it to encode it, the slowness is to be expected as the low end,
off the shelf products have rather poor encoders.

 

[Guest]

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

wenmang wrote ...
> I am using Ulead Virtual Studio, my PC is Dell Dimension 3000 with P4
> 2.8G Hz. The other question that I have is, using Ulead, I tried to
> capture video from Canon DV camcorder in mpeg format through a video
> capture card(firewire), the video looks awful compared with the one in
> avi format which unfortunately occupies around 12-13G HD for about
> 1hour recording. My Canon DV comcorder only has a DV output and I am
> wondering what format that I can use instead of avi to capture video
> without losing the quality of the video like avi.

You didn't mention why 13GB/hour is a problem for AVI? If it is there only
long enough to edit and transcode it, so what?

 

[Doc]

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

<wenmang@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114018091.776281.106110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am using Ulead Virtual Studio, my PC is Dell Dimension 3000 with P4
> 2.8G Hz. The other question that I have is, using Ulead, I tried to
> capture video from Canon DV camcorder in mpeg format through a video
> capture card(firewire), the video looks awful compared with the one in
> avi format which unfortunately occupies around 12-13G HD for about
> 1hour recording. My Canon DV comcorder only has a DV output and I am
> wondering what format that I can use instead of avi to capture video
> without losing the quality of the video like avi.
> Thanks


I've never done digital capture so I can't provide many details but it
sounds like something's not right. However, I'm not sure why you feel 12
gig/hour of capture is a problem? If avi gives better results, why not use
that? It's going to get "squeezed" down eventually when you go through the
DVD rendering process. If h/d space is an issue, get a bigger dedicated h/d.
I've got a 120 gig and it seems plenty big, I'm sure your system will handle
an even bigger drive.

 

[Guest]

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

If you're using one of the fastest encoders around, Cinema Craft
Encoder, on a 3Ghz P4 system, you can easily get 1:1 real-time or faster
encoding speeds off a 720x480 29.97fps/30fps AVI that's ready to go
(meaning you don't need to add titles, effects, process, etc.).

Otherwise, slower encoders like that built into MyDVD, Vegas Video, etc.
can do it in 2x-4x slower than real-time.

Add effects, rendering titles, etc. and you can easily top 6x slower
than real-time.

---

Best bet here? Get Cinema Craft Encoder and use it!

 

[Guest]

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

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:d49fnp$9vu$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> If you're using one of the fastest encoders around, Cinema Craft
> Encoder, on a 3Ghz P4 system, you can easily get 1:1 real-time or faster
> encoding speeds off a 720x480 29.97fps/30fps AVI that's ready to go
> (meaning you don't need to add titles, effects, process, etc.).

Ummm . . . titles, effects, etc. will have no impact on transcode time --
they're already part of the DV stream in the editor. Motion and "busyness"
of the video, Bit rate, DC precision and motion estimation settings will
effect transcode time, as well as the particular algorithms employed by the
transcoder. The Cinemacraft Encoder is one of the faster ones around.

>
> Otherwise, slower encoders like that built into MyDVD, Vegas Video, etc.
> can do it in 2x-4x slower than real-time.

Everything depends on bit rate (primarily) and a few other factors. As a
general rule fast transcoding = lousier video quality, slow transcoding =
better video quality.

>
> Add effects, rendering titles, etc. and you can easily top 6x slower
> than real-time.

Uh, no, effects and titles don't matter. Rendering is done to produce the
AVI. If you're working in Vegas or Premiere, the render time will be the
same, whether you're exporting to AVI or transcoding from the timeline to
mpeg. Transcoding is extended by busy scenes with lots of motion which will
encode slower than, for example, a black screen with a single title.

>
> ---
>
> Best bet here? Get Cinema Craft Encoder and use it!

 

[rs]

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

PTravel wrote:
> "David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:d49fnp$9vu$1@news.service.uci.edu...
>
>>If you're using one of the fastest encoders around, Cinema Craft
>>Encoder, on a 3Ghz P4 system, you can easily get 1:1 real-time or faster
>>encoding speeds off a 720x480 29.97fps/30fps AVI that's ready to go
>>(meaning you don't need to add titles, effects, process, etc.).
>
>
> Ummm . . . titles, effects, etc. will have no impact on transcode time --
> they're already part of the DV stream in the editor. Motion and "busyness"
> of the video, Bit rate, DC precision and motion estimation settings will
> effect transcode time, as well as the particular algorithms employed by the
> transcoder. The Cinemacraft Encoder is one of the faster ones around.
>
>
>>Otherwise, slower encoders like that built into MyDVD, Vegas Video, etc.
>>can do it in 2x-4x slower than real-time.
>
>
> Everything depends on bit rate (primarily) and a few other factors. As a
> general rule fast transcoding = lousier video quality, slow transcoding =
> better video quality.
>
>
>>Add effects, rendering titles, etc. and you can easily top 6x slower
>>than real-time.
>
>
> Uh, no, effects and titles don't matter. Rendering is done to produce the
> AVI. If you're working in Vegas or Premiere, the render time will be the
> same, whether you're exporting to AVI or transcoding from the timeline to
> mpeg. Transcoding is extended by busy scenes with lots of motion which will
> encode slower than, for example, a black screen with a single title.
>
>
>>---
>>
>>Best bet here? Get Cinema Craft Encoder and use it!
>
>
>
Yes, that is true, but I believe the previous poster was just trying to
take the extra step in giving usefull, as opposed to only specifically
technically correct, answer only immediate question type of advice.

Many people take their tapes, capture them, cut them up a bit, then
discover the titles and effects section of their software and start
having fun with that. Then, they post a question here about rendering
time maybe no realizing that the addition of said bells and whistles
will slow things down.

Someone new to the video field will not realize that there are a large
number of variables and products to address them, therefore, it seems
helpfull to give these people general advice they can use as opposed to
symantic disagreements over the use of terms like 'render' and
'transcode'. We don't know how complex the user may or may not want
their product to be. If their goal is to just transfer tape to dvd
without doing anything to it in between, and their complaint is that it
takes a long time to process, then telling them that Cinema Craft
Encoder will process a non-gussied up dv file into a format that a dvd
authoring program won't have to reprocess again, is a very valid suggestion.

 

[Guest]

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

"RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:4269064a$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> PTravel wrote:
> > "David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
> > news:d49fnp$9vu$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> >
> >>If you're using one of the fastest encoders around, Cinema Craft
> >>Encoder, on a 3Ghz P4 system, you can easily get 1:1 real-time or faster
> >>encoding speeds off a 720x480 29.97fps/30fps AVI that's ready to go
> >>(meaning you don't need to add titles, effects, process, etc.).
> >
> >
> > Ummm . . . titles, effects, etc. will have no impact on transcode
time --
> > they're already part of the DV stream in the editor. Motion and
"busyness"
> > of the video, Bit rate, DC precision and motion estimation settings will
> > effect transcode time, as well as the particular algorithms employed by
the
> > transcoder. The Cinemacraft Encoder is one of the faster ones around.
> >
> >
> >>Otherwise, slower encoders like that built into MyDVD, Vegas Video, etc.
> >>can do it in 2x-4x slower than real-time.
> >
> >
> > Everything depends on bit rate (primarily) and a few other factors. As
a
> > general rule fast transcoding = lousier video quality, slow transcoding
=
> > better video quality.
> >
> >
> >>Add effects, rendering titles, etc. and you can easily top 6x slower
> >>than real-time.
> >
> >
> > Uh, no, effects and titles don't matter. Rendering is done to produce
the
> > AVI. If you're working in Vegas or Premiere, the render time will be
the
> > same, whether you're exporting to AVI or transcoding from the timeline
to
> > mpeg. Transcoding is extended by busy scenes with lots of motion which
will
> > encode slower than, for example, a black screen with a single title.
> >
> >
> >>---
> >>
> >>Best bet here? Get Cinema Craft Encoder and use it!
> >
> >
> >
> Yes, that is true, but I believe the previous poster was just trying to
> take the extra step in giving usefull, as opposed to only specifically
> technically correct, answer only immediate question type of advice.

The problem was it was misleading. People reading the post will think they
can cut down transcode time by eliminating transitions, titles and special
effects from the video. That's simply not true.

>
> Many people take their tapes, capture them, cut them up a bit, then
> discover the titles and effects section of their software and start
> having fun with that. Then, they post a question here about rendering
> time maybe no realizing that the addition of said bells and whistles
> will slow things down.

Then what's wrong with giving them accurate information? Rendering and
transcoding time are two completely different concepts.

>
> Someone new to the video field will not realize that there are a large
> number of variables and products to address them, therefore, it seems
> helpfull to give these people general advice they can use as opposed to
> symantic disagreements over the use of terms like 'render' and
> 'transcode'. We don't know how complex the user may or may not want
> their product to be. If their goal is to just transfer tape to dvd
> without doing anything to it in between, and their complaint is that it
> takes a long time to process, then telling them that Cinema Craft
> Encoder will process a non-gussied up dv file into a format that a dvd
> authoring program won't have to reprocess again, is a very valid
suggestion.

Erroneous information doesn't help anyone. If someone wants to transfer
tapes to DVDs, they're not going to be concerned with transitions, effects
and titles. For that matter, they don't even have to be concerned with
using an editor, so render times would be completely irrelevant. On the
other hand, someone who is adding transitions, effects and titles _is_,
almost certainly, working in an editor, and the concept of rendering is
critical. As another poster mentioned, work flow is an important aspect of
video production, and having a clear understanding of what's happening is
essential to understanding the process. Wrong information only confuses
people. There are a couple posters here who think that most people's
interest in desktop video is limited to copying tapes to DVD or making
compilation DVDs from OTA broadcasts. Though, of course, there are
certainly a lot of people who like to do that, to assume that they are the
sole market for desktop video (and representative of the overwhelming
majority of readers of this ng) is incorrect.

If the OP had said something like, "Adding titles, effects and transitions
makes the computer work harder and longer to produce video," I wouldn't have
said anything. What he said was this: "Titles, effects and transitions
increase transcoding time." That's just flat out wrong.

>

 

[Guest]

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

> The problem was it was misleading. People reading the post will think they
> can cut down transcode time by eliminating transitions, titles and special
> effects from the video. That's simply not true.

Most users will have their video in some sort of editor timeline
and/or in their DVD making program, and these usually allow the
additional of effects, titles, etc. on top of the original when
rendering to DVD/MPEG-2 files. If this is the case, then the original
statement is true.

If the video file is already pre-rendered with effects, transitions
and titles to a final AVI file for conversion into DVD/MPEG-2 format,
then no, the rendering time will not be affected by the contents of the
pre-rendered AVI file.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:d4btou$q2n$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> > The problem was it was misleading. People reading the post will think
they
> > can cut down transcode time by eliminating transitions, titles and
special
> > effects from the video. That's simply not true.
>
> Most users will have their video in some sort of editor timeline
> and/or in their DVD making program, and these usually allow the
> additional of effects, titles, etc. on top of the original when
> rendering to DVD/MPEG-2 files. If this is the case, then the original
> statement is true.

In an authoring package, yes, but it is absolutely untrue with respect to an
editing program (and how many people do you think edit, i.e. add
transitions, titles and effects, in an authoring program?). First, your
assumption is that most users author and burn from the editing timeline.
This is an incorrect assumption, or there wouldn't be as many questions
about entry-level authoring packages in the ng. Among more experienced
users, the consensus appears to be that quick one-offs _may_ be authored and
burned from the editor timeline, but most people use a separte authoring
package.

Next, by the time a project is ready to be authored, whether or not from the
timeline, effects, titles and transitions have already been rendered as part
of the preview process. Do you know anyone who adds these things without
checking to see how they look? Finally, your answer completely ignores
software like Edition, that renders automatically in the background, or
hardware-based renderless solutions, such as Matrox add-in boards.
Obviously, once rendered, the presence of effects, titles and transitions
adds no time whatsoever to the transcoding process.

>
> If the video file is already pre-rendered with effects, transitions
> and titles to a final AVI file for conversion into DVD/MPEG-2 format,
> then no, the rendering time will not be affected by the contents of the
> pre-rendered AVI file.

And, in virtually all circumstances, the effects, transitions and titles
will have already been rendered (or, depending on the hardware or software,
do not need to be rendered), even if a final AVI file has not been created.

 

[rs]

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

PTravel wrote:
> "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:4269064a$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
>
>>PTravel wrote:
>>
>>>"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:d49fnp$9vu$1@news.service.uci.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you're using one of the fastest encoders around, Cinema Craft
>>>>Encoder, on a 3Ghz P4 system, you can easily get 1:1 real-time or faster
>>>>encoding speeds off a 720x480 29.97fps/30fps AVI that's ready to go
>>>>(meaning you don't need to add titles, effects, process, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>Ummm . . . titles, effects, etc. will have no impact on transcode
>
> time --
>
>>>they're already part of the DV stream in the editor. Motion and
>
> "busyness"
>
>>>of the video, Bit rate, DC precision and motion estimation settings will
>>>effect transcode time, as well as the particular algorithms employed by
>
> the
>
>>>transcoder. The Cinemacraft Encoder is one of the faster ones around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Otherwise, slower encoders like that built into MyDVD, Vegas Video, etc.
>>>>can do it in 2x-4x slower than real-time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Everything depends on bit rate (primarily) and a few other factors. As
>
> a
>
>>>general rule fast transcoding = lousier video quality, slow transcoding
>
> =
>
>>>better video quality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Add effects, rendering titles, etc. and you can easily top 6x slower
>>>>than real-time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Uh, no, effects and titles don't matter. Rendering is done to produce
>
> the
>
>>>AVI. If you're working in Vegas or Premiere, the render time will be
>
> the
>
>>>same, whether you're exporting to AVI or transcoding from the timeline
>
> to
>
>>>mpeg. Transcoding is extended by busy scenes with lots of motion which
>
> will
>
>>>encode slower than, for example, a black screen with a single title.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>Best bet here? Get Cinema Craft Encoder and use it!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, that is true, but I believe the previous poster was just trying to
>>take the extra step in giving usefull, as opposed to only specifically
>>technically correct, answer only immediate question type of advice.
>
>
> The problem was it was misleading. People reading the post will think they
> can cut down transcode time by eliminating transitions, titles and special
> effects from the video. That's simply not true.
>
>
>>Many people take their tapes, capture them, cut them up a bit, then
>>discover the titles and effects section of their software and start
>>having fun with that. Then, they post a question here about rendering
>>time maybe no realizing that the addition of said bells and whistles
>>will slow things down.
>
>
> Then what's wrong with giving them accurate information? Rendering and
> transcoding time are two completely different concepts.
>
>
>>Someone new to the video field will not realize that there are a large
>>number of variables and products to address them, therefore, it seems
>>helpfull to give these people general advice they can use as opposed to
>>symantic disagreements over the use of terms like 'render' and
>>'transcode'. We don't know how complex the user may or may not want
>>their product to be. If their goal is to just transfer tape to dvd
>>without doing anything to it in between, and their complaint is that it
>>takes a long time to process, then telling them that Cinema Craft
>>Encoder will process a non-gussied up dv file into a format that a dvd
>>authoring program won't have to reprocess again, is a very valid
>
> suggestion.
>
> Erroneous information doesn't help anyone. If someone wants to transfer
> tapes to DVDs, they're not going to be concerned with transitions, effects
> and titles. For that matter, they don't even have to be concerned with
> using an editor, so render times would be completely irrelevant. On the
> other hand, someone who is adding transitions, effects and titles _is_,
> almost certainly, working in an editor, and the concept of rendering is
> critical. As another poster mentioned, work flow is an important aspect of
> video production, and having a clear understanding of what's happening is
> essential to understanding the process. Wrong information only confuses
> people. There are a couple posters here who think that most people's
> interest in desktop video is limited to copying tapes to DVD or making
> compilation DVDs from OTA broadcasts. Though, of course, there are
> certainly a lot of people who like to do that, to assume that they are the
> sole market for desktop video (and representative of the overwhelming
> majority of readers of this ng) is incorrect.
>
> If the OP had said something like, "Adding titles, effects and transitions
> makes the computer work harder and longer to produce video," I wouldn't have
> said anything. What he said was this: "Titles, effects and transitions
> increase transcoding time." That's just flat out wrong.
>
>
>
>
Cause you weren't giving information. You were picking nits. For
example. Your last paragraph. The writer used the wrong word.
"Transcode" instead of "Render". We all pretty much new what he meant.
But yes, you have successfully climbed the hill of 'technically right'.

Its usually pretty obvious when someone posting has never done this
before. And layering lots of terms, methods and the video encoding
theory 211 on them is just going to make their eyes glaze over. Just
know when to give it to them in detail and when to give it to them in
just starting out terms, thats all I'm sezzen.

 

[Guest]

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

"RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message news:42697114$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> PTravel wrote:
> > "RS" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:4269064a$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
> >
> >>PTravel wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:d49fnp$9vu$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If you're using one of the fastest encoders around, Cinema Craft
> >>>>Encoder, on a 3Ghz P4 system, you can easily get 1:1 real-time or
faster
> >>>>encoding speeds off a 720x480 29.97fps/30fps AVI that's ready to go
> >>>>(meaning you don't need to add titles, effects, process, etc.).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ummm . . . titles, effects, etc. will have no impact on transcode
> >
> > time --
> >
> >>>they're already part of the DV stream in the editor. Motion and
> >
> > "busyness"
> >
> >>>of the video, Bit rate, DC precision and motion estimation settings
will
> >>>effect transcode time, as well as the particular algorithms employed by
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>transcoder. The Cinemacraft Encoder is one of the faster ones around.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Otherwise, slower encoders like that built into MyDVD, Vegas Video,
etc.
> >>>>can do it in 2x-4x slower than real-time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Everything depends on bit rate (primarily) and a few other factors. As
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>general rule fast transcoding = lousier video quality, slow transcoding
> >
> > =
> >
> >>>better video quality.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Add effects, rendering titles, etc. and you can easily top 6x slower
> >>>>than real-time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Uh, no, effects and titles don't matter. Rendering is done to produce
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>AVI. If you're working in Vegas or Premiere, the render time will be
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>same, whether you're exporting to AVI or transcoding from the timeline
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>mpeg. Transcoding is extended by busy scenes with lots of motion which
> >
> > will
> >
> >>>encode slower than, for example, a black screen with a single title.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>---
> >>>>
> >>>>Best bet here? Get Cinema Craft Encoder and use it!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yes, that is true, but I believe the previous poster was just trying to
> >>take the extra step in giving usefull, as opposed to only specifically
> >>technically correct, answer only immediate question type of advice.
> >
> >
> > The problem was it was misleading. People reading the post will think
they
> > can cut down transcode time by eliminating transitions, titles and
special
> > effects from the video. That's simply not true.
> >
> >
> >>Many people take their tapes, capture them, cut them up a bit, then
> >>discover the titles and effects section of their software and start
> >>having fun with that. Then, they post a question here about rendering
> >>time maybe no realizing that the addition of said bells and whistles
> >>will slow things down.
> >
> >
> > Then what's wrong with giving them accurate information? Rendering and
> > transcoding time are two completely different concepts.
> >
> >
> >>Someone new to the video field will not realize that there are a large
> >>number of variables and products to address them, therefore, it seems
> >>helpfull to give these people general advice they can use as opposed to
> >>symantic disagreements over the use of terms like 'render' and
> >>'transcode'. We don't know how complex the user may or may not want
> >>their product to be. If their goal is to just transfer tape to dvd
> >>without doing anything to it in between, and their complaint is that it
> >>takes a long time to process, then telling them that Cinema Craft
> >>Encoder will process a non-gussied up dv file into a format that a dvd
> >>authoring program won't have to reprocess again, is a very valid
> >
> > suggestion.
> >
> > Erroneous information doesn't help anyone. If someone wants to transfer
> > tapes to DVDs, they're not going to be concerned with transitions,
effects
> > and titles. For that matter, they don't even have to be concerned with
> > using an editor, so render times would be completely irrelevant. On the
> > other hand, someone who is adding transitions, effects and titles _is_,
> > almost certainly, working in an editor, and the concept of rendering is
> > critical. As another poster mentioned, work flow is an important aspect
of
> > video production, and having a clear understanding of what's happening
is
> > essential to understanding the process. Wrong information only confuses
> > people. There are a couple posters here who think that most people's
> > interest in desktop video is limited to copying tapes to DVD or making
> > compilation DVDs from OTA broadcasts. Though, of course, there are
> > certainly a lot of people who like to do that, to assume that they are
the
> > sole market for desktop video (and representative of the overwhelming
> > majority of readers of this ng) is incorrect.
> >
> > If the OP had said something like, "Adding titles, effects and
transitions
> > makes the computer work harder and longer to produce video," I wouldn't
have
> > said anything. What he said was this: "Titles, effects and transitions
> > increase transcoding time." That's just flat out wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Cause you weren't giving information. You were picking nits.

Sorry, I wasn't picking nits. The OP said, "Transitions, titles and effects
add to transcoding time." That's completely wrong.


> For
> example. Your last paragraph. The writer used the wrong word.
> "Transcode" instead of "Render". We all pretty much new what he meant.
> But yes, you have successfully climbed the hill of 'technically right'.

It's not a question of "technically right." It's a question of someone
thinking that if they have an AVI with titles, effects or transitions in it,
it's going to take longer to transcode into DVD-compliant mpeg2 than an AVI
which does not. That's completely wrong.

>
> Its usually pretty obvious when someone posting has never done this
> before.

Yep. Which is why, when someone posts erroneous information in response to
a question by a newbie, I'll correct it.

>And layering lots of terms, methods and the video encoding
> theory 211 on them is just going to make their eyes glaze over.

This isn't "video theory." It's no different than someone saying, "Red cars
burn more gas than blue cars." It's just wrong. This isn't an arcane
point -- it's quite basic.

> Just
> know when to give it to them in detail and when to give it to them in
> just starting out terms, thats all I'm sezzen.

And, again, the issue isn't detail vs. broad overview, but correct
information vs. incorrect information. This point wasn't whether the OP had
said "transcode" when he should have said "render," but that what he said,
i.e. that it will take longer to go from AVI to DVD-compliant mpeg2 if there
are titles, transitions or effects in the AVI, being completely wrong.


>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:11:56 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
wrote:

Both of you have provided some valuable information in this thread.
Excellent and valid points have been made on both sides, and I, for
one, am grateful you've taken the time to provide it. But I really
wish each of you would take a moment to trim your responses so one
doesn't have to struggle through so many previous postings to find the
valuable points you've made.

Thank you for your consideration.

f

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:58:29 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
wrote:

>your
>assumption is that most users author and burn from the editing timeline.
>This is an incorrect assumption

When speaking of "most users", it may be an incorrect assumption (or
perhaps not, who knows). But if we mean "most beginners", then it's
not an incorrect assumption. Usually, people that just want to play
lightly on digital video, are happy with a do-it-all, where rendering,
encoding, authoring, and burning, are done on one go, transparently to
the user, that sees it as 1 only process. Then they complain that it
takes long to make a DVD. Of course it takes long, because the
software has to do several things, one at a time. And it is then that
effects and such do have a bearing in the time it takes to get a ready
toasted disc. Though actually, the influence they have on the whole
may be rather small, because the application has many other things to
do as well. But those beginners usually believe all the time is spent
on encoding. (Most? Yes. All? By no means).

 

[Guest]

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

"Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
news:sr3l61980s1orvft0totru3iss62flb6mc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:58:29 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
>
>>your
>>assumption is that most users author and burn from the editing timeline.
>>This is an incorrect assumption
>
> When speaking of "most users", it may be an incorrect assumption (or
> perhaps not, who knows).

It's an incorrect assumption, because anyone who wants to make a
good-looking DVD will need more authoring capabilites vis-a-vis menu and
button creation than are available in the integrated packages. No doubt,
some, perhaps even many, people burn from the timeline, but that's not the
point, anyway.

> But if we mean "most beginners", then it's
> not an incorrect assumption.

I meant "most people," not "most beginners." However, to get from the
"beginner" stage to the stage where someone has sufficient control over the
process so that they can actually produce the video that they want requires
a reasonably understanding of the process.

> Usually, people that just want to play
> lightly on digital video, are happy with a do-it-all, where rendering,
> encoding, authoring, and burning, are done on one go, transparently to
> the user, that sees it as 1 only process.

Well, yes. What's your point? If someone is adding effects, titles and
transitions, they're doing considerably more than just assembling video
clips onto a DVD.

> Then they complain that it
> takes long to make a DVD.

Sigh. And the presence of transitions, effects and titles will NOT add to
the transcode time in 90% of the cases because, as I've explained ad
infinitum, in any editing package I can think of, effects, transitions and
titles will have been rendered as part of the preview process (or are
rendered in the background during edit, or are rendered in real-time by
add-in hardware) before the project is transcoded to mpeg for burning to a
DVD.


> Of course it takes long, because the
> software has to do several things, one at a time. And it is then that
> effects and such do have a bearing in the time it takes to get a ready
> toasted disc.

Most editing programs do NOT re-render already-rendered video before
transcoding. As C.J. noted, work-flow is everything. The work-flow in
preparing a video with titles, transitions and effects is this:

1. capture video
2. assemble video on timeline
3. add transitions, titles and effects

or

2/3 . assemble clips and add transitions, titles and effects as you go

4. preview video to make sure transitions, titles and effects look right

5. when project is complete, either save to avi for later transcoding, or
transcode and burn from the timeline.

By the time you get to 5, the video has already been rendered. Rendered
videos with titles, transitions and effects do NOT add to the transcode
time.


> Though actually, the influence they have on the whole
> may be rather small, because the application has many other things to
> do as well. But those beginners usually believe all the time is spent
> on encoding. (Most? Yes. All? By no means).

That's right. And beginners who think encoding time will be shortened if
they don't use titles, transitions or effects are wrong, which is why I
corrected the OP.

>