DVD vs. BluRay authoring?
When I'm finished capturing all of my family's home videos to digital, I'd like to distribute them in a disk format. I don't own a BluRay burner at this point but don't mind getting a good one.
Question: is there a big difference in difficulty between authoring DVD and BluRay? I'd like to do BluRay since it can hold more videos, but if it's a huge hassle compare to DVD, I'd rather pass. |
DVD menus = easy (and crappy quality), to moderate (slight learning curve, artistic skill is biggest issue)
BDAV menus = PITA If you go menu-less, both are easy with TMGPEnc Authoring Works ($100). The BD specs require 15mbit MPEG 720x480. With SD content, don't try to do H264, you'll just make a mess, and lose quality. |
Something I think your not considering is that if you are distributing to family,friends, or anyone for that matter,they need a bluray player to watch your disks if you choose Blu-ray.
|
Quote:
Authoring works allows authoring a BD or DVD, and then conversion of the file to the other format fairly seamlessly. Makes it easy to produce both from the same basic projecta as long as you have avoided exotic features in menus. FWIW, you can record HD (AVCHD) to DVD media giving HD playback on most BD players. The main limit is the amount of material (time) you can put on a disc. My impression is that young people don't do DVD/BD anymore, while older people still like the formats. It is, all in all, easier to used on a TV - nothing new to learn. |
Quote:
DVD menus don't have to be Hollywood standard to look uncrappy. |
I think it's late for authoring on a disc. Just capture lossless, encode to a good quality bitrate h.264 (manageable for sharing over internet) or a high quality h.264 for flash media sharing and save time and optical media.
|
Quote:
I will have the lossless masters on a HDD of course, but I'm doing this so everyone can view them without much difficulty on their +1080p TVs. |
Quote:
Related - a lot of rural America does not have affordable/reliable high speed internet access. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Despite us occasionally being bizarrely Soviet (like our healthcare system) our telecoms were wholly and completely deregulated in the early 90s after years of simply only BT (British Telecom) owning the whole shebang, which I think happens in the US with Bell? Upshot is mass competition drove costs down and service quality up, my most expensive broadband in one of my offices is around £60 ($80 USD) per month with gigabit service, my home is around £20 ($27 US) a month I think for basic 100mb/s service. Data capped broadband was mostly abolished here before 2010 which still seems to be alive and well in other parts of the world. The other benefit of this is that is knocked on to wholesale, and mobile data is very good value in the UK, I have unlimited (including tethering) 5G data on my mobile phone for around $30US a month. We do need a $225 US a year licence to use a television though....:mad4: Oh and a tank of petrol/gas for the average family car costs around $120US at the moment so 'swings and roundabouts' jumps to mind. |
We have "competition" here too! You can buy the expensive weak base package (only $99! :huh1:), or the overly expensive "premium" package (not f'ing premium whatsoever), from the allowed municipal monopoly that paid the city/county to keep out "riff-raff" (aka other companies, aka actual competition). See, choice! :rolleyes:
100 gigabit is the "premium" package* for "only" $149 (USD). * Download only, upload is less than 1/10th that speed. ** Measured from max speed at 3am, when almost nobody online, from the node itself. *** Max speed past the node drops off entirely, actual is about 80 gigabit at best at night. **** Plus taxes, including fake tax-sounding fees we made up. ***** Plus fees, to pad out your bill by at least 20% We "deregulated" too. Or so says (complains?) lobbyists and politicians. I call BS. If $225/year actually guaranteed me some decent channels, take my money. BBC? Yes, please! (Although all that SJW/woke crap is getting annoying, ruined Doctor Who. I wanted scifi, not weekly shaming/PC lectures.) This is getting a bit OT now, but I think the original post was over some posts ago. |
Quote:
There's growing (palpable) anger at the BBC in the UK at the moment, what started as a few people refusing to may has now created a groundswell of 'non-engagement' with the BBC and television licence is growing exponentially at the moment. The BBC is not popular in the UK at present, and I don't think it will recover in all honesty. As you've pointed out, it's made some curious decisions and it continues to double-down on them, although I've never watched Doctor Who and never will, but it goes much deeper than that. I won't be drawn in to politics here, but all I can say is that I nodded at your remark... ..Imagine what the news service is like! It's now making it's own television film about one of the biggest and sickest scandals in UK modern history. Trouble is that the individual worked for the BBC his whole career and there's considerable evidence that they covered for him, and several other household names in the UK convicted of similar offences. That's not a wholesome topic though, and I won't post any more about it - but as we've wandered off-topic, it might provide a bit of background to the present feelings toward the BBC in the UK. Why don't we just have an off-topic thread, if people can natter it might ease a few tensions anyway? |
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.