Go Back    Forum > Digital Video > Video Project Help > Encode, Convert for discs

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
06-26-2010, 08:35 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi there,

I have a question about which codec to use for archiving videos. I have chosen a different route than Blu-Ray or DVD. I have captured all my old VHS tapes using a hardware based MPEG2 encoder card. Now, I want to transcode the various segments of the tapes to files using a video and audio codec that I will be able to distribute to family so that they can play on PCs and media players (TV connected) for years to come. The file formats supported on the device I am initially distributing to family are below:

***************
Video - AVI (Xvid, AVC, MPEG1/2/4), MPG/MPEG, VOB, MKV (h.264, x.264, AVC, MPEG1/2/4, VC-1), TS/TP/M2T (MPEG1/2/4, AVC, VC-1), MP4/MOV (MPEG4, h.264), M2TS, WMV9
Audio - MP3, WAV/PCM/LPCM, WMA, AAC, FLAC, MKA, AIF/AIFF, OGG, Dolby

Note:
- MPEG2 MP@HL up to 1920x1080p24, 1920x1080i30 or 1280x720p60 resolution.
- MPEG4.2 ASP@L5 up to 1280x720p30 resolution and no support for global motion compensation.
- WMV9/VC-1 MP@HL up to 1280x720p60 or 1920x1080p24 resolution. VC-1 AP@L3 up to 1920x1080i30, 1920x1080p24 or 1280x720p60 resolution.
- H.264 BP@L3 up to 720x480p30 or 720x576p25 resolution.
- H.264 MP@L4.1 and HP@4.1 up to 1920x1080p24, 1920x1080i30, or 1280x720p60 resolution
**************

For the audio I will likely go MP3 but for the video I am still undecided. The bitrate and settings I can play with but the big thing now is, what codec?

I was thinking Xvid but I am asking myself, will PCs and media players still play that format in 5, 10 years? Then I thought of H264? I want to use something that will fit 60 hours of video on 150 GB, max. Anyway, looking for some advice from the experts. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
06-26-2010, 11:35 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Hello to you too! And what a good post.

Before I begin, please look at upgrading to a Premium Member account, to support what we do at this forum. Questions like this take a lot of time to answer. We're trying to raise some funds for some new features for the site. Membership fees and donations are how we do it.

Let me start this reply with this review:
  • DVD-Video is MPEG-2
  • Blu-ray Disc is MPEG-2 and/or H.264 (AVC HD, MPEG-4 Part 10)
  • The exact specs for both disc formats are rigid and must adhere to specific file sizes, resolutions, bitrates, encoding parameters, etc. This is what ensures all discs can play in all players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucgallant View Post
Hi there,
I have a question about which codec to use for archiving videos. I have chosen a different route than Blu-Ray or DVD.
Although you don't want to use the discs, or even the file/encoding specs required by those disc formats, I would still stick to the video formats (codecs) in use.

MPEG-2 and H.264 both have industry-wide uses, from broadcasting (aerial/antenna, satellite, cable), to mobile/web content delivery, to professional intermediaries (for MPEG-2, at least).

MPEG-2 and H.264 are going to be part of the video world for a long, long time. Both have been around quite a while. MPEG-2 is going on 20 years old right now, while H.264 is going on a decade old. Neither one is going anywhere for the next decade, either.

Now I've been around digital video since the early 1990s. In that decade, it was mostly dabbling, experiments, learning. Pretty much everything I ever used in the 1990s is gone, excluding MPEG-1 and MPEG-2.

Even formats that were popular from 2000-2005 are now gone. As much as I consider XVID (the open-source reverse-engineered version of Divx) a good format, it's already on its death bed. MKV files (H.264 codec) are replacing XVID in the online video-sharing downloading scene. Even On2 Flash is going away, pre-empted by H.264 in a Flash wrapper, in the video-sharing web-viewing scene (Youtube, for example).

XVID is probably fine for now, but I would not use it for an archival format.

Beyond that, H.264 encodes better than either MPEG-2 or XVID, with the way it handles noise and bitrates.

Quote:
I have captured all my old VHS tapes using a hardware based MPEG2 encoder card. Now, I want to transcode the various segments of the tapes to files using a video and audio codec that I will be able to distribute to family so that they can play on PCs and media players (TV connected) for years to come.
I hope you captured them at a high bitrate, if you're planning to re-encode. By high, I'd be referring to 15Mbps or greater. Maybe 12Mbps at minimum. No more than 20Mbps is really required from home sources (waste of bitrate).

Quote:
The file formats supported on the device I am initially distributing to family are below:
***************
Video - AVI (Xvid, AVC, MPEG1/2/4), MPG/MPEG, VOB, MKV (h.264, x.264, AVC, MPEG1/2/4, VC-1), TS/TP/M2T (MPEG1/2/4, AVC, VC-1), MP4/MOV (MPEG4, h.264), M2TS, WMV9
Audio - MP3, WAV/PCM/LPCM, WMA, AAC, FLAC, MKA, AIF/AIFF, OGG, Dolby

Note:
- MPEG2 MP@HL up to 1920x1080p24, 1920x1080i30 or 1280x720p60 resolution.
- MPEG4.2 ASP@L5 up to 1280x720p30 resolution and no support for global motion compensation.
- WMV9/VC-1 MP@HL up to 1280x720p60 or 1920x1080p24 resolution. VC-1 AP@L3 up to 1920x1080i30, 1920x1080p24 or 1280x720p60 resolution.
- H.264 BP@L3 up to 720x480p30 or 720x576p25 resolution.
- H.264 MP@L4.1 and HP@4.1 up to 1920x1080p24, 1920x1080i30, or 1280x720p60 resolution
The one thing I'd remember is that home sources are interlaced videos. While H.264 supports interlace, MPEG-2 does it better.

You don't really want to software deinterlace archival videos. Software deinterlacers are really still in their infancy. Maybe in another 10 years, the algorithms will be better.

So keeping that in mind, maybe MPEG-2 would be your best choice for quality retention. The media center computer/device should be smarter enough to either deinterlace in its hardware/software, ot simply display as interlaced to the HDTV (and let it de-interlace with it its own hardware).

Quote:
For the audio I will likely go MP3
I'd suggest AAC, personally. Even AC3 would be a better choice. MPEG-based audio compression is lossy compared to those newer and better digital formats. A 96kbps AAC sounds about the same as a 160kbps MP3 file. A 256kbps AAC is what I'd possibly call archival. (Don't quote me on that, I might change my mind on AAC bitrates later.)

Quote:
but for the video I am still undecided. The bitrate and settings I can play with but the big thing now is, what codec?
Progressing through the post, I really think MPEG-2 is the best solution, followed by H.264. And then AAC or AC3 over MP3.

Quote:
I was thinking Xvid but I am asking myself, will PCs and media players still play that format in 5, 10 years?
I don't think it will, no. Divx/Xvid popularity is waning, and I don't project it's going to be out there much longer in its current implementation. The only reason its still there is TV show downloads via torrents. You don't see anybody using it for anything else.

Quote:
Then I thought of H264?
Quote:
I want to use something that will fit 60 hours of video on 150 GB, max. Anyway, looking for some advice from the experts. Thanks.
That's 2.5GB per hour. For H.264, that's probably fine. For MPEG-2, you're maybe starting compress it into the DVD-Video range (maybe 6 Mbps). I'd need a calculator to be more exact.

Given how you can buy a 1TB drives for under $100 now, or 1.5TB drives for about $150 -- all prices $USD -- I'd suggest upping yourself from a 150GB limitation. If the media center you have now is only 150GB, then expand it with an external drive. Or replace the internal drive. Or add one. Don't limit yourself to the current device any more than you'd want to limit yourself to codecs that will only exist now (and not in 5-10 years).

And while HDD archiving is fine, it's not good archival policy. You should still create DVD-Video versions, to vary the storage format (non-magnetic), as well as create more backups in the process.

I'd suggest BOTH the non-DVD and the DVD-Video versions.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
06-27-2010, 02:27 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
Hello to you too! And what a good post.

Before I begin, please look at upgrading to a Premium Member account, to support what we do at this forum. Questions like this take a lot of time to answer. We're trying to raise some funds for some new features for the site. Membership fees and donations are how we do it.
I have joined as premium member because this site has helped me immensly with my conversion project.


Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
I hope you captured them at a high bitrate, if you're planning to re-encode. By high, I'd be referring to 15Mbps or greater. Maybe 12Mbps at minimum. No more than 20Mbps is really required from home sources (waste of bitrate).
I used the WinTV software (Hauppage) and captured using the highest possible settings in the software. That came out to 8Mbps. I would have went higher but I was limited to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
The one thing I'd remember is that home sources are interlaced videos. While H.264 supports interlace, MPEG-2 does it better.

You don't really want to software deinterlace archival videos. Software deinterlacers are really still in their infancy. Maybe in another 10 years, the algorithms will be better.
That's a good thing to know. I was de-interlacing them because these videos will no longer be viewed on anything other than LCD monitors (or plasma).

Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
So keeping that in mind, maybe MPEG-2 would be your best choice for quality retention. The media center computer/device should be smarter enough to either deinterlace in its hardware/software, ot simply display as interlaced to the HDTV (and let it de-interlace with it its own hardware).
From my initial tests with my media player (WD TV Live), it does de-interlace although not well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
I'd suggest AAC, personally. Even AC3 would be a better choice. MPEG-based audio compression is lossy compared to those newer and better digital formats. A 96kbps AAC sounds about the same as a 160kbps MP3 file. A 256kbps AAC is what I'd possibly call archival. (Don't quote me on that, I might change my mind on AAC bitrates later.)
For audio codec I will take your suggestion and use either of those.

So now the main questions have after reading the entire post is, assuming I will be going with MPEG2, which is pretty likely, what is the best way to encode it? TMPEGEnc? Or is there a way to get VDub to encode MPEG2?

I know my videos are already in MPEG2, but the problem I have is that I captured all the tapes and I need to do a bit of editing, mainly to clean up the beginning and end of each tape. Ideally I would just be able to take the existing data and put it in a new container, cutting it at either end. Could that be done?

Also for the family I purchased each individual 250Gb drives, so there is more space than the initial 150Gb I mentioned earlier. I figure between 6-8 Mbps on for the final bitrate will work.

Thanks very much and looking forward to proceeding on this archiving.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
06-27-2010, 04:33 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Thanks for becoming a Premium Member. It's folks like you that will help this site grow and continue to be a valuable video resource online.

Hmmm... WinTV should let you ceiling out at 15Mbps. At least it does with the Hauppage PVR-150, 250 and 350 cards. Which exact card is this that you're using?

Yeah, definitely leave the interlacing as-is. Otherwise you're honestly just butchering the video quality. The HDTV hardware, or computer player software, can deinterlace better than editing/encoding software can do right now.

Can you play interlace out of the WDTV player (Western Digital hard drive media center, right?) and then just let the TV do its thing? I would think so, although I've not had a chance to play with the WDTV.

I love TMPGEnc for it's many filters -- some of which can't be found in VirtualDub or even Avisynth -- but the MPEG encoding quality is mediocre at best by 2010 standards. You're talking about an encoding engine that was developed about a decade ago. The only time I suggest using it for encoding is when those filters are needed, or when the person's budget does not allow for anything better. (It's only $37, after all!)

Depending on what bitrate you want for your videos, the free Matrox I-frame MPEG-2 codec/encoder may be an option. That would be high quality, at 25Mbps, and with one of the best encoder engines that exists. But it won't fit your 150GB limit -- you'd definitely need a 1TB drive for it. That also won't help you with a DVD-Video version, although you could just fall back on TMPGEnc Plus for that. I'm also not sure if all HTPCs/MCs (like WDTV) can handle it -- you'd have to refer to the product manual or test a few quick test files. I don't see it included in the above specs -- but if it plays what is listed, then I'd think it would play these, too.

You can do simple "scissors and tape editing" (just cutting off what you don't want, maybe re-arranging clips) with Womble software. I'd highly suggest editing your MPEGs in Womble MPEG Video Wizard DVD:
Although you may not specifically be making DVD-Video discs, it seems you're still making DVD-Video spec MPEG files, both audio and video. Just wanted to point that out. It's not a bad archival format at all, but you could exceed those specs with more hard drive space (to allow for more bitrate!)

In the USA (I know you're in Canada), you can pick up 1TB drive for under $100. I saw one for $79 last week, and posted about it either in the deal forum, or on our Facebook or Twitter feeds. You should be our Facebook fan, or follow us on Twitter. Links at the very top of all forum pages.

I think I got to every point. If there's anything else, just ask.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
06-27-2010, 05:25 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
Hmmm... WinTV should let you ceiling out at 15Mbps. At least it does with the Hauppage PVR-150, 250 and 350 cards. Which exact card is this that you're using?
I am using the WinTV-HVR-1850. In the WinTV the software says "Default Analog Recording Quality", and then there is a drop down and you can choose between Fair, Good, Better, Best. I have it on Best and I get 8Mbps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
Can you play interlace out of the WDTV player (Western Digital hard drive media center, right?) and then just let the TV do its thing? I would think so, although I've not had a chance to play with the WDTV.
The WDTV Player does not let me choose. It seems that either the TV or the WDTV is performing de-interlacing, it's just that you still see spots of interlaced video here and there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
I love TMPGEnc for it's many filters -- some of which can't be found in VirtualDub or even Avisynth -- but the MPEG encoding quality is mediocre at best by 2010 standards. You're talking about an encoding engine that was developed about a decade ago. The only time I suggest using it for encoding is when those filters are needed, or when the person's budget does not allow for anything better. (It's only $37, after all!)


Depending on what bitrate you want for your videos, the free Matrox I-frame MPEG-2 codec/encoder may be an option. That would be high quality, at 25Mbps, and with one of the best encoder engines that exists. But it won't fit your 150GB limit -- you'd definitely need a 1TB drive for it. That also won't help you with a DVD-Video version, although you could just fall back on TMPGEnc Plus for that. I'm also not sure if all HTPCs/MCs (like WDTV) can handle it -- you'd have to refer to the product manual or test a few quick test files. I don't see it included in the above specs -- but if it plays what is listed, then I'd think it would play these, too.

You can do simple "scissors and tape editing" (just cutting off what you don't want, maybe re-arranging clips) with Womble software. I'd highly suggest editing your MPEGs in Womble MPEG Video Wizard DVD:
I see what you're saying about the softwares above. I already have the Pinnacle Studio 14 software, and it does encode MPEG2, but only MP2 or PCM audio.

I guess one thing that was missed in the answer, is there a way to cut the beginning and end off of a video clip without re-encoding the entire clip?
That would enable me to not re-encode but just to clip the ends of the video, and would maintain my MPEG2 video and audio - I think that would work great.

Otherwise I could go with TMPEGenc to get my MPEG2. There are so many options out there, it's kind of confusing as to which one to go with. It also seems that the x264 is a little bit more modern so maybe it would be easier to get what I want with that codec? I have one in Vdub right now, x264vfw.



Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
In the USA (I know you're in Canada), you can pick up 1TB drive for under $100. I saw one for $79 last week, and posted about it either in the deal forum, or on our Facebook or Twitter feeds. You should be our Facebook fan, or follow us on Twitter. Links at the very top of all forum pages.
I did consider getting larger drives. I wanted to get external drives with no additional power required, so I went with a 2.5" external WD drive. I could have went larger, up to 640gb, but I went with the 250gb drives for all my family (and a 500gb unit for myself). I went with these because my thoughts were not to re-encode the destination file at a higher bitrate than my source itself.

I plan on keeping the original 8Mbps files on my hard drive basically forever, so the option would always be there in the future to re-encode.

I haven't tried encoding above 8Mbps but even when I try transcoding to 6Mbps I can't really tell the difference between the two videos. The only difference I notice is that video that has been transcoded to an interlaced file, I can see the horizontal lines more on the second file than the first one.

When I watch the first file that came straight out of the capture card, I can't really see the lines in WMP. Not quite sure what's going on there.

I don't know if I said anything that makes sense there. I'm just trying to get to a final decision to that I can start seperating the different parts of these large files. The next step will be filters ...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
06-27-2010, 06:16 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Quote:
I guess one thing that was missed in the answer, is there a way to cut the beginning and end off of a video clip without re-encoding the entire clip? That would enable me to not re-encode but just to clip the ends of the video, and would maintain my MPEG2 video and audio - I think that would work great.
is answered with this:

Quote:
You can do simple "scissors and tape editing" (just cutting off what you don't want, maybe re-arranging clips) with Womble software. I'd highly suggest editing your MPEGs in Womble MPEG Video Wizard DVD:
Womble does not re-encode MPEGs for basic splicing work.
VideoReDo is another option.
TMPGEnc/Tsunami also as MPEG Editor.

But I suggest Womble products above all others.

NOTE: Well, technically it DOES re-encode the GOP where the split is made. But that's about half of a second worth of the video. You won't even notice it. Not really the same thing as re-encoding the whole video, of course.

..............

x264 and x264vfw are not the same. x264vfw is based on a much older x264 build from what I know. (As of just a couple of months ago, and I doubt it's changed.) VFW encoding H.264 via VirtualDub isn't in much demand. There are other, faster GUIs/front-ends for x264. I've not had time to thoroughly test them, so I can't tell you which is "best" right now. It's on the to-do list for later in the year.

I use MainConcept Reference here, the expensive professional solution. x264 has worked for a long time to get as good as MainConcept. And now, sometimes it's close. Some would say x264 is better, but I don't know that I'd quite make that leap. There's something to be said for dedicated open-source projects, but the same could be said for high-end software companies with huge budgets selling $2,000 programs.

...............

If you re-encode the MPEG files, and see lines now, where you didn't before, the encoding parameters may be messed up. That's easy to do in TMPGEnc Plus 2.5. Be sure to read over the guide here on this site:

Filters gets even harder.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
The following users thank admin for this useful post: lucgallant (07-12-2010)
  #7  
06-27-2010, 09:18 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
is answered with this:



Womble does not re-encode MPEGs for basic splicing work.
VideoReDo is another option.
TMPGEnc/Tsunami also as MPEG Editor.

But I suggest Womble products above all others.

NOTE: Well, technically it DOES re-encode the GOP where the split is made. But that's about half of a second worth of the video. You won't even notice it. Not really the same thing as re-encoding the whole video, of course.
Ah, I see. Sorry, misread it. So at least I know that that is an option now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by admin View Post
x264 and x264vfw are not the same. x264vfw is based on a much older x264 build from what I know. (As of just a couple of months ago, and I doubt it's changed.) VFW encoding H.264 via VirtualDub isn't in much demand. There are other, faster GUIs/front-ends for x264. I've not had time to thoroughly test them, so I can't tell you which is "best" right now. It's on the to-do list for later in the year.

I use MainConcept Reference here, the expensive professional solution. x264 has worked for a long time to get as good as MainConcept. And now, sometimes it's close. Some would say x264 is better, but I don't know that I'd quite make that leap. There's something to be said for dedicated open-source projects, but the same could be said for high-end software companies with huge budgets selling $2,000 programs.


Filters gets even harder.
Thanks for the info. I'll avoid using this version, if I want to go with h264 I'll find a better, newer implementation.

I guess what it comes down to for me is, do I want to accept my video clips as they are now, or re-encode them giving me the ability to apply filters.

I wonder if the re-encoding is worth it? I saw the generic "VHS" filters in VDub.

I guess I'll have to do some trial and error and determine what is better for me.

Any suggestions? Do you think re-encoding is worth the filters? To me re-encoding unavoidably degrades the video, so there's gotta be a compromise there.

I captured all my videos with my brand new JVC DH-40000U if that matters any.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
06-27-2010, 10:10 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Don't use the generic VHS filters.

Sample images/videos is really the only way to determine what works best for any given scenario.

There is a "go to" list of often-useful filter in both VirtualDub and TMPGEnc Plus. Same for a few other programs.

But...

... this is where digitalFAQ.com stopped about 5 years ago, when certain priorities around the site were changed. Those guides were halted indefinitely at the time, and some articles/guides were removed. The blog was taken down, too. As of this year, those are being rebooted. Some finished guides are going to be updated and restored, and new ones added. Same for some old blog articles (editorials, really), but we're not there yet.

dyfan and cyber-whatsits are wanting the same thing.

That's going to be one of the first items added on the new site, which finally started in July (delayed from March, delayed from several other times in the past). I've set aside time to do it all summer long and into the fall as needed.

So...

The best that be done for the near future is to submit images/video samples of errors you want to fix, and suggestions can be made for those scenarios. You'll learn from this way, too. Just maybe not as quickly as you would from the unwritten guides.

There are some other guides online that have attempted to cover these topics, but they are pretty terrible, to be honest. The people writing them don't seem to have a strong grasp of both analog video and the digital tech together.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
06-28-2010, 09:51 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ah man, I had just typed up a long reply and when I clicked "Go Advanced" on the Quick Reply area it said the token had expired...

Anyway, I was posting to say thanks for all the help provided with these important decisions regarding my video editing.

In short I have to decide between using the scissors and tape method on my current MPEG2 clips or decide to apply filters and re-encode.

Like it was mentioned before I have to find what I perceive are errors and then see how I can fix them. To me, the brand new JVC VCR I purchased did such an awesome job that most of my videos look great!

So I'll play around with it and post back with the route I decide to use. Thanks again, the help is very much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
06-28-2010, 10:05 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Yeah, the token expiring is part of vBulletin's security functions. I don't know all the details, but it happens if you take too long doing something on the forum. The session expires, I believe. It may be tied to the one-hour post editing window. I always copy/paste new posts into Notepad real quick before submitting. (Notepad is ALWAYS open on this computer, due to various notes/coding work being done at almost all times.)

Anyway...

Glad to hear you're making some progress, and finding direction on the project. That's excellent.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
07-07-2010, 07:24 AM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi there,

just wanted to post back that I downloaded Womble tonight and gave it a go. Although the user interface is a little cumbersome, I eventually got used to it. The "Smart Encoding" part of the application is really nice.

I just modified a test clip as I intend to modify all my clips (Black Fade In, Black Fade Out). Exporting the file was extremely fast because obviously it isn't re-encoding, and the output quality is obviously exactly like my original file (obviously).

I think this program will work great for my purpose since for us (me and my family), none of us would notice the applied filters - and if we want to apply them sometime in the future it is as though we are applying them on the originally captured files. Thanks for the direction, very happy with where this is going!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
07-08-2010, 12:18 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Excellent!

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
07-12-2010, 08:31 AM
robjv1 robjv1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 187
Thanked 37 Times in 33 Posts
Having used several NLE for MPEG videos, I have to say the Womble Products, particular MPEG Video Wizard once you get used to the interface is by far the most intuitive and useful for MPEG2 video in particular.

Being able to make frame accurate cuts EASILY and quickly is not too common and it's one of the few that really lets you take advantage of the keyboard to perform a lot of the routine functions that get downright infuriating when you have to use the mouse a lot in other programs. Plus it is actually pretty smart and doesn't force re-encodes of the whole stream as a default, which minimizes having to constantly fiddle with the settings before you export your project to make sure it doesn't secretly destroy your video.

It may take some getting used to, but it's heads above the rest on the productivity scale.

One thing to watch for on your black fade in / black fade outs -- occasionally I will get a video that will be obviously very pixelated on the frames fading in/out. Also, sometimes it will appear that the frame rate has changed for those frames, creating a weird motion effect.

The key is to keep your fades short to minimize the number of these frames visible.

Luckily, there is a way to run your saved MPEG Video Wizard project file (or even better, a separate project file with just the frames impacted by the black fade in and fade out, that you cut and paste into your original project file) through an external encoder using VFAPI or avisynth, so that your re-encoding is handled by a better encoder -- that's the one big flaw of MPEG Video Wizard, not great quality for encoding.
Reply With Quote
The following users thank robjv1 for this useful post: kpmedia (07-12-2010)
  #14  
07-12-2010, 11:27 AM
dyfan dyfan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 128
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjv1 View Post
One thing to watch for on your black fade in / black fade outs -- occasionally I will get a video that will be obviously very pixelated on the frames fading in/out. Also, sometimes it will appear that the frame rate has changed for those frames, creating a weird motion effect.

The key is to keep your fades short to minimize the number of these frames visible.
I don't recommend allowing more than a half (represented as '.5') second in/out when using Womble's fade filter...A quarter second would be even better. And as you said, the pixelation- albeit brief- is rather obvious...
Reply With Quote
The following users thank dyfan for this useful post: admin (07-12-2010)
  #15  
07-12-2010, 01:24 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
Yes, good advice, dyfan! I would also suggest only going for 0.25 to 0.5 seconds, for most cases. Sometimes you can do 0.75 to 1 second, but you may not some macroblocking from the encoding of those GOPs.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
07-12-2010, 09:34 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi guys,

thanks for the feedback. robjv1, the fact that Womble doesn't re-encode the entire file as admin had pointed out originally is what made me go for the program.

I have been putting in 1 second fade-ins and 2 second fade-outs. I did that across the board so far and have seen no evidence of blocking or slowing down when watched on the computer. I'll try it again played on the TV but from what I remember before there were no problems.

Anyway thanks a lot for your assistance and I'll post again once I am near the end of my project completion.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
07-12-2010, 10:04 PM
dyfan dyfan is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 128
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Quote:
I have been putting in 1 second fade-ins and 2 second fade-outs. I did that across the board so far and have seen no evidence of blocking or slowing down when watched on the computer. I'll try it again played on the TV but from what I remember before there were no problems.
Just a little professional buffer for you: You will see "blocking" when viewed on a television...And IMMEDIATELY want to re-do your fade segments---
Don't get discouraged- just be sure to save your editor project!
...Post back to let us know whatever adjustments you make for improvement...
Good luck.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
07-12-2010, 10:17 PM
lucgallant lucgallant is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyfan View Post
Just a little professional buffer for you: You will see "blocking" when viewed on a television...And IMMEDIATELY want to re-do your fade segments---
Don't get discouraged- just be sure to save your editor project!
...Post back to let us know whatever adjustments you make for improvement...
Good luck.
Hi there,

not sure if this makes a difference but I haven't been using Womble's Fade Filter directly. Instead, I right click the clip in the timeline and use the Fade function there (Alt-F). It's easier to use that way. Not sure if it actually uses the filter, I would think probably.

I just watched 5 of my videos on the TV and they look perfect, I didn't see blocking in any of them at all. I have put a lot of work so far in outputting all these individual files, so I think I will leave these as is. If as you suggested the blocking would be prevalent I would maybe have a different opinion but the fade in and fade outs look really good on the TV. I had mentioned it above that I am not playing these on DVD, I am playing these on my media player. Not sure if that makes a difference. Thanks for the advice,
Reply With Quote
  #19  
07-13-2010, 07:38 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,308
Thanked 658 Times in 457 Posts
I'd say that content sometimes determines the degree of blocking observed.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
07-15-2010, 01:32 AM
robjv1 robjv1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 187
Thanked 37 Times in 33 Posts
This is really interesting -- as I too have observed that blocking is sometimes extremely prevalent and sometimes not, but mostly so on longer fades. I've just got into the habit of using another encoder, so I never did figure out what impacts it's severity. I'll have to play with this a bit more.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DVD+R DL - Is Mediarange (MR470) or Prodye (RICOHJPND01) a sensible choice? rekput Blank Media 3 02-23-2010 01:27 PM
Taiyo Yuden second choice to Verbatim DVD discs? admin Blank Media 2 12-31-2009 08:17 PM
Archiving video for viewing? matt- Project Planning, Workflows 3 09-25-2009 12:12 AM
TBC Choice for capture PanamaYellow Capture, Record, Transfer 5 09-29-2004 10:10 AM
What are the best codecs to install ? jrnyhead Videography: Cameras, TVs and Players 1 04-28-2004 03:40 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 PM