DVD Encoding
 

I have one question thats been buging for a while. Once you have created a Cineform.AVI from your project..lets use 720x480 30fps NTSC/Wide Progressive for example. And you take that file into Encore to create your DVD what transcode setting should be used to output the best resaults. Will Encore degrade the cineform file during DVD encoding sine Cinefrom does not do the final transcoding when authoring?

And does the same apply when authoring Blu-ray discs?
I guess I do not understand if we are going to go thru all this work to have Encore or what ever destroy the High Quality CF file?

You always have to lose something when going down to the distribution data rates of DVD and BluRay, yet you are getting the best results by starting with the highest quality master file.

Bruce, many of us use CF for "Mastering", since we have multiple target types for distribution. Usually these are DVD, BR, or Flash trailers. Since we live in an age of rapidly changing distribution options, the high final quality CF "Masters" allow us to downres to the highest quality that particular medium is capable of.

As such, it appears that in the near future, the "full" 1920x1080 res "Masters" could be used directly for "downloadable HD distribution". So, I guess the bottom line for many, is having the highest possible quality masters at the best "price/benefit/editing performance" point possible.

Cinefom is on the cutting edge for that scenerio.

Thanks Dave/Stephen
Question #1 if I deinterlace when I capture 1440x108060i footage Do I need to keep selecting Deinterlace for all my outputs or is my footage deinterlaced when captured forever if I select that option.

Ok I undertand the HQ master.

#2 If you have PPCS4 Suite and you have captured all your video using CF, then In theory if you do not always need a master CF.avi. will you get the same quality DVD output using the dynamiclink and taking it into Encore right away for final transcode?

#3 What transcod setting do you feel give you the best out put for DVD and BD in Encore? if you have the highest quality to start with do you feel CBR or VBR is better and do you feel set the quality slider to the max?

Stephen I sent you an email asking if you would share how you compressed your flash video for your site, I was very impressed with the quality and speed of how fast it loaded over the net and how smooth it played.

Thanks

Bruce,

I am not expert for Cineform and I don't have Encore, but I can say that transcodings from Cineform to Blu Ray or DVD are for most people very important if not the most impotrant stages in whole proces. I think this stage is little underestimated on this forum, but you have many other forums about mpeg encoding and encoders.

As long as you are in Cineform (or other similar codec) you don't lose anything visible. But, when you come back to mpeg2 you must lose something and you can lose all benefits you got with Cineform workflow if you don't do it well or too sparingly - so whole Cineform process don't make sense.

So, you shold do transcodings back to mpeg2 with best encoder you can get and with best settings it has. And you shouldn't think about rendering times, but much more on quality.

VBR vs CBR - if space on disc is not your problem, than for example VBR 20 - 25 -30 can't be better than CBR 30 mbps, but VBR 25 - 30 - 33 can be better than CBR 30 mbps. Who will know - it all depends on your video, but for ordinary video with all given examples you will hardly notice any difference on TV (if source was from HDV).

Bitrate - some people say, and I think that it makes sense, that it is good to set higher bitrate for Blu Ray than it was in your original video before you transcoded it to Cineform (for example, if you had HDV with CBR 25 mbps, it wold maybe be good idea to set something like VBR 25 - 28 - 33 mbps). Final video with higher bitrate never can't be better than original, but with higher bitrate you give more space and chance to encoder to successfully estimate I, P and B pictures.

Bruce, apparently the email function is not working here. I also sent myself an email to test and haven't received it either, sorry.

As Ivan stated, your final encoder is certainly important, but it seems to us, that generally speaking, we gain better results using CBR at the highest practical settings for that particular format (and most others). That might not be true if you have very high motion sequences, though.

There are some qualifiers here.

One, is that we bump everything up to square pixel (1920x1080p from HDV with HDLink) and edit everything as progressive in that size.

For downresing to Flash, we've found the Abode CS3 Flash encoder works well with square pixel material done in High Quality (700kbps) using the On2 VP6 codec. The trailers are 480x270 and look very nice indeed and run smoothly. The new encoder in CS4 is even better and allows us to output in HD if desired, though we aren't using that size yet.

Another beast altogether is doing MPEG2's for DVD! It seems to almost be a mixture of skill, luck, black magic and good codecs to get consistently good material. With square pixel CF masters, we've found that often times, we can get better mpg's from TMPGEnc (version 4.6.3.268) by just using the standard MPEG2 Video setting, setting it to "Quality Encode mode, CBR, 10 bit DC component precision, progressive display mode, and using "High Motion search precision". Save the settings as a preset and you're good to go.

Our mpg's done that way, seem to have pretty consistent quality, though the new CS4 encoder may now rival TMPGEnc (for ouput quality). We really haven't found H.264 to make much difference at these lower resolutions, though it does at BR sizes.

For DVD, the rule seems to be, use the highest quality settings you can, without "pushing" into the range of not playing on some players (by using higher bitrates than 8Mb for video).

The truth is, DVD sucks compared to HD, but if you start from high quality masters, you'll usually end up with pretty decent DVDs.

Thanks Ivan and Stephen!!!! This is a lot to digest and good info. I need to output Both BD and DVD for clients because they have not seen the benifites of BD, But with everone buying LCD tvs if you do not give them the best single the picture will look crappy!!

Stephen I was asking how you created such awsome flash files for your website?? They load so fast abd run so smooth and are excepent quality. If you want to take this off line you can email me at bagrubes@hotmail.com and Ivan I would alos like to hear from you..

When speaking about Blu Ray and bitrate, I also think that stretching 1440 to 1920 is not a bad idea, and on one forum I have read this about stretching, which I think makes sense (it is not my words but directlly interpretation from one senior member from this forum):

”The effects of a 1440 to 1920 stretch are small and wouldn't be noticed on a consumer camcorder. Bit rate is more important. Recording at 1440x1080 saves 25% of the pixels and 25% of the bitrate. To get the same MPeg2 quality at 1920x1080, one would need to record at 33.3Mb/s.

If you stretch HDV to 1920x1080i for Blu-Ray, you should compensate with 33 to 35 Mb/s bit rate to maintain quality.”

If you calculate a little , you will find that 1920/1440 = 1,33, and 25x1,33= 33,3.


When speaking about DVD bitrate, I never noticed problems with video bitrates of CBR 9200-9400 kbps in last 10 years on very different DVD players (cheap and good ones). I think we can speak about 20-30 different DVD players here.

I gave my DVDs to my family and friends and nobody never complained about problems with playing of such a DVD video. I know that 8000-8500 kbps is a practical limit for SD mpeg2 and I lose a little space on DVD, but I always make it with higher bitrates for me, just for safety and not to think about that any more.

Only once I noticed problems with bitrates of CBR 9800 kbps, but only on one and very cheap and old DVD player (not mine).

But, if you are working DVDs for different clients, you should maybe be more carefull and do it with bitrates under the 9000 kbps (just for safety).

If your clients have LCDs, you must do your video in 16:9. It’s a little joke, but sugest them to buy plasma instead of LCD (because in most cases SD looks better on plasma). You shuldn’t be scared that DVDs will look crappy if you make them like Stephen suggested – I tried something like this and they look wonderfull.

I don’t know why they make DVDs progressive (I didn’t try yet), but I tried interlaced SD from interlaced HDV and it also looks great – even visible better than from my old and very good SD cam. Picture with such a DVD on plasma is somewhat cleaner with less artifacts and very sharp. But sharpness is not so important – you can always sharpen in post in your NLE or on your TV if you want. But one thing is important – when you scale down (from 1920 or 1440 to SD) you should scale with HDLink engine, not with your NLE engine).

And some additional questions for Stephen about Blu Ray and Tmpgenc (or Vegas):

- is it good idea to use CBR fro Blu ray mpeg2 ?
- what is the highest practical and proposed bitrate when you make 1920x1080 Blu Ray
from the HDV source ?
- do you use 10 bit DC component precision for Blu Ray mpeg2 and with which bitrates (I
noticed that in most standard made templates for Blu Ray DC component precision is
set on 9, and I know that it is good to put it on 10 if your bitrate is bigger (for example
more than 8000 for DVD) –and I don’t know this bitrate “border” for Blu Ray )?

Thnaks Ivan! this is very useful informaion! I am still learning about the wole pixel thing>
Where is the stetting for 1920x1080 square pixel when Importing using HDlink? Or is that native when you select 1920x1080? and do not select de-interlaced?

One more question. You say you should start with the best possible master. Should I use a Full res CF.avi then take that to Encore or what ever or should I use CF to compress to 720x480 first then take that to Encore or what ever?

In HDLink, when you select 1920x1080 – it is native to get square pixels.
If you select none (for HDV video) you will get 1440x1080, PAR 1,33 (and like your original HDV video, non square pixels).

Selecting “deinterlacing” in HDLink have nothing with pixels and PAR - if you select this - your output from HDLink will be progressive. If you don’t your output will be interlaced like your original.

Some propose to do that (select deinterlace) – I don’t do that because in most cases I don’t like look of my interlaced video when I make progressive video from it (but this is only me, and the way in which I shoot the video).

When you read my previous posts about DVDs – everything is certainly right and tested by me and I do like that for years without problems.

When speaking about HD, I am still new here and I am still learning (although, mpeg2 is mpeg2 and there should be not so much difference between SD and HD regarding best encoder settings). But some differences must be.

For example, thinkings from others like “If you stretch HDV to 1920x1080i for Blu-Ray, you should compensate with 33 to 35 Mb/s bit rate to maintain quality.” - I didn’t prove yet by myself and I am not sure is it the truth or not and maybe you waste to much space on Blu Ray disc because of that (if your source is 25 mbps HDV) – so I put some additional questions to much more expert users like Stephen (or others).

But, you can see also from my previous posts that I don’t care too much about rendering times or space on disc – I would do everything to get the best possible quality – and I always want to have some “reserve” in that sense. If you get more “reserve” (higher bitrates, best settings but higher rendering times , more discs) than you shouldn’t care too much if your encoder is the best or not, or does somebody give you good advice or not – they are all good when you go above some borders.

In past, I read so much about which mpeg2 encoder is the best (Tmpgenc, Vegas with its Mainconcept, standalone Mainconcept and many others) but I never get real and consistently answer. It seems that people measure quality of encoder in terms of speed, and what can it do when you go with low settings and low bitrates – but most people agree that there is not so much difference between all of them when you go with high settings (apart from speed).

Bruce, since this is an open "real names" forum and we can learn from each other, I'll try to answer your questions here where I might have some experience or knowledge (however faulty that may be). If I'm all wet with something, someone with better knowledge is free to correct me!

Ivan, I'm only as much of an expert as most of the rest of the people on this forum! Like you and almost all others, I've spent many hours trying to wade through the morass of the MPEG2 world and burned my share of useless platters.

One thing I believe is true about HDV, is that when you are upsizing to square pixel, you are not really "stretching" anything. HDV is "compressed" to 1440x1080i and uses Long-GOP MPEG2 (15 frames long) to fit on the little DV cassettes. By using CF, we are merely "restoring" the video back to it's original, normal aspect-ratio, which is at the square pixel CMOS chip capture size. CF also converts it to a format which is much easier to edit and does not use MPEG2's method of compression (thus not passing on block errors to each successive generation).

We don't need to go into detail on that, as there are many, many threads on this forum with specific info on the processes involved.

All that is to say the following: The ideal would be to capture our video right from the chips, before it is compressed and information is thrown out)! Since most people do not have an easy way to do that (unless you can afford the cams or equipment that CAN do that...), we try to preserve our HDV material in the most cost/benefit ways possible. CF has given us one way where we can take our CF-compressed material (at +100Mbp/s decompressed!), and output it at the highest rates available to us with each distribution format. At the highest Bluray rates (usually 35-40 Mbps), our HDV material done this way will still look very good. It is only when we start to compare it side by side to true uncompressed HD on large screens that we start seeing the weaknesses.

So to answer Ivan, the rule seems to be just use the highest possible rates on whatever format you are outputting to. Since BR goes back to MPEG2, the same problems we have with DV are still there...

As to interlacing, ALL plasmas and LCD TV's are inherently progressive, as are ALL modern computer monitors. Interlace has to be converted to progressive before being displayed on them. Why not just start with progressive and not have to depend on the conversion quality of the target equipment? Sure, you'll find some interlaced TV's still in use, but the future is PROGRESSIVE. Sometimes high motion scenes can be a problem with progressive, but if your video is not normally high motion (like sports, flashing lights, fast camera moves), it seems to me progressive is best. Although HDV recorded onto tape is usually recorded as interlaced (at least with Sony) no matter what setting you use, CF can change it to progressive quite nicely at the beginning of the edit path.

Ivan, we are still only "testing" BR output, as until there are some changes in the BR scene, we are not going that way unless we have to. Our target audiences are worldwide, so we're still sitting on the fence as to our final HD distribution methods. I personally do not like BR for many reasons (even if it does allow us to show off our material better). For small producers and distribution, it sucks bigtime, so we are still waiting for a "better solution" to appear. My bets are on "direct download", but if things take too much longer for that to truly get here, we'll have to do the BR thing too. In that case, YOU'LL be answering MY questions!

Things are changing so quickly these days, we're glad we used CF's intermediate codec for our workflow. Most of the newer compression schemes still have major editing probs, so CF still claims most of the higher ground, and I can't see that changing much in the near future. Even the new 3D scene has been covered by CF, and they are the only real show in town (for standard PC editing) in those formats.

Ivan, lead the way! You're the BR man, so we'll let you burn the platters for us... :) and answer Bruce's questions!

Sorry Bruce, got long-winded and forgot your question.

For DVD's (or BR, I would assume), just remember that Encore is really only just "packaging your video" to watch. Though it will compress it for you if needed, it always seems much better to me to not trust it to do that, and compress it yourself first so you can check it out. Since TMPGEnc, or the new CS4 encoders (you can't use CF for that final compression, as you're going back to MPEG2 for it) are very fast with their compression/downsizing, you can actually gain time that way. The Encore burns are very fast then, since it doesn't have to compress video for you.

(Note: If decoders on TV's, DVD/BR players and other equipment could decode CF, we'd just have to "downsize" our CF masters for DVDs.......but they can't.)

No this is a good discussion and I wish more people would jump in on it I was hoping to hear for Dave and the Cf poeple also but I know they are working on getting CF up and running for Cs3 and cs4.

It is so hard to find information all in one spot that contains this kind of information.

Ivan Quote(Some propose to do that (select deinterlace) – I don’t do that because in most cases I don’t like look of my interlaced video when I make progressive video from it (but this is only me, and the way in which I shoot the video).


Ivan at what point do you make the Progressive transformation in you work flow?

Also I have a short clip I made slow motion with PP cutting the speed by half I tried De Int. and Progres. And I can not get it to look good and smooth?

First, thanks to Stephen for very informative post. Although we don't think in the same way, he answered my questions.

To Bruce:

It seems you are more interested in SD than HD. I have read whole forum (I am new here) and from HDV to Sabout downresizing D there are basically two different options here:

1) To start with best possible master (Full HD) and then make everything from that. Most people from forum and people from Cineform support that option (and Stephen I think)

2) To directly compress from 1440x1080 to SD and work with that. People from Cineform didn't say anything against that, and only some people here claims that this way they have sharper SD video than with option 1)

Because of two different approaches to the same problem, I tried both on few 1-2 minutes examples and couldn't find any significant difference between the two. But my only tools were my eyes, histograms in Vegas and my BR/TV setup. Both methods are giving very nice and similar looking results to my eyes.

Option 1) is more practical if you want the same looking video for all your formats (same transitions, text, etc), and well, it is supported by people from Cinefrom. It is much more time consuming if you want only DVD than option 2), but it gives to you only one master for all formats (BR, DVD, and all other).

For all your rescalings (up or down) you must be sure that are done with HDLink rescaling engine (not with Vegas or Encore or what ever).

Option 2) is practical only if you want only SD and under that. It is much faster if you want only DVD and nothing more. But, for me it is hard to find such a situation where you want only SD, when you have HD cam.

So, when you think about both options, it seems that option 1) is winner.


About progressive vs interlaced. I have two cams, one is SD, and other is HDV. Both have PAL 25p progressive mode.

If I shoot in interlaced I don't do progressive transformation in my work. Plasma, DVD player or PS3 are doing that for me - and if video is properly filmed it looks very good with very rare interlaced flickers . I mainly shoot interlaced 50i. Very rare I shoot progressive 25p.

I do it that way because I didn't like the look of my progressive 25p video. It was sharp and without flicker, but very often, I could see visible strobe motion with it. I am more sensitive on strobing than on rare flickering in video. And I believe this is the case with most home made videos (you know, everything is not planed, children are running around, weddings, parties and so). For documentary or some other works, progressive is I believe better.

I tried to deinterlace my HDV video with Vegas. It has two options (blend fields and interpolate fields). With blend fields video is not sharp, with interpolate fields video is sharp but strobbing even more than when I filmed directly with 25p.

The true is, I didn't try to deinterlace with Cineform yet. Maybe situation with Cineform deinterlacing would be different. There are some good threads about Cineform deinterlacing on this forum where people from Cineform are explaining what method does Cinefrom use to deinterlace.

Ok so what I am getting out of this so far is to Start with. 1920x180 Capture. The edit in PPCS3 or what ever. Now here ie the question.

1. I output to the same as the project to CF.avi.
2. Use that file and tkae it to HDlink if I want to down sizes to DVD 720x480 or do I take the orginal HDCF file srtaight to Encore or tempeg? Now PPCS3 and or 4 allow you to rescale via the export file to media encoder there you can select the Cineform encoder do you see anyting wrong with using that rather then the HDlink or is it the same.
3. If I want to go BD I go straight to Encore CS4 or tempeg with my HD high quality CF file?

Another question.

If I capture 1920x1080 square when converting to BD do I use upper fiels. And wehn converting to SD DVD do I use lower fields or progressive?

But in interlaced I get sever jagged edges not I did not master in 1920x1080 I did not try that.

Bruce,

All depends on the field order from your cam (I think it is should be UFF). HDLink will not change your field order and it will stay UFF which is right (if you don’t choose deinterlace).

I am not sure which cam you have. If you have HDV, it is UFF.

I am also not sure which encoder and software you have. Some encoders can be confused with field orders and can’t recognize it well on input. Some encoders even can’t proper transform from UFF tu LFF.

I am with Vegas and I know its behaviour with field orders. But I don’t know for your encoder.

But, my advice would be – if you are making interlaced video (no matter SD, or BluRay, or whatever) stay from the begging to the end with UFF (check it on input and outputs of all your programs and change if needed) – so stay with field order of your cam. You can change field order if you want, but there is no need for that and you should know behaviour of you encoder.

Also, if you make progressive (you checked deinterlace in HDLink) stay from the begging to the end with No Fields or Progressive (check it and change if needed on inputs and on outputs of all your programs).

If that don’t works for you, you should experiment with your programs and remember what is working for you. If one option don’t, the second probably will. No matter, if you are doing progressive or interlaced - but there souldn’t be any jaggies if everything is done right and if you or your encoder didn’t make something wrong with field orders.

And, I tried a little how Cineform deinterlace. It does it very good and I never saw such a good deinterlacing from any software. But, for HD I will still stay in interlaced if I shoot intelaced (because if I want progressive I can shoot progressive). For SD, it would maybe be good idea to do progressive (even if your shoot interlaced HD), although I was very happy with interlaced SD outputs.

I hope that somebody will now not say that I am interlaced man. I would like progressive, but 50p. With 25p, interlaced vs progressive is still so, so. All depends on material. And I am not Blu-Ray man. I am much more fisherman. I would give to fishing rods prior to new HDV cam and all what goes with it. But, you must live in reality and get what they give to you. Now, it is BluRay and it looks better than SD on big TVs - tommorow who knows.


Well, it seems me and Bruce are the only ones in this discussion. I thing it is because there is much problems wtih new 210 build releases. And me, with Vegas 8c also seem to have different behaviour with new releases (on worse, I think).

Are we alone?
 

Thanks Ivan,
I am new to HD I just bought sony fx1000 (second cam) and Z5U so I am HDV shooting 1080 60i I need to test other settigns, and I use premier Pro CS3 and 4 all the way. I was looking at tempeg but I like the Encore menues. Can I use tempeg to just create MPEG-2 file and bring that into Encore? Will encore try to transcosde>

Any way I have been trying to figure out the settings in Encore and exactly how the work and how they affect you output. I am total clueless on what the GOP setting are for? I just leave them set to default.

My hobby was high end audio/video and as long as I can remember they we pushing the progressive thing I have an LCD 120hz I know plasma are better but my room is very bright so I went with LCD. I did notice the interlaced leaves some jagged edges and quite a bit more banding ( we call it that in the photography world) oh did I forget to mention I am a photographer to.

I stumbled upon Cinefrom thru looking thru some form after I was shocked how lousy SD dvd looked coming straigh off my HD camars and compressing with Adobe!!!! SO I tried a quick test with CF and I was amazed at the differance in quality I was hooked and bought it.. I am very interested in having the best HD output for BR but right now, I am trying to get the Best SD output for my clients. BR is my next step.

I will do more testing based on your and Stephens input and who ever esle wants to jump in. Your advise is very good.. Oh I am not worried about speed or file size..

Sorry I've had little time to comment here again, and since we've not suffered enough yet with BR, have little to add to that.

Just a comment on banding:

One of the reasons we decided CF was important, was trying to preserve a little of our 8-bit video without banding, (even if it already was introduced by the MPEG2 compression). Again I repeat: If you can capture (like with a BM Intensity board) direct from the camera before that MPEG2 compression is applied, and you keep it square pixel and bump to 10bit, you'll hardly ever see banding. HDMI or SDI out of the cam is a good way to go for that.

Since we often have multi-generational trips thru CS3/SC4 with our video, and use quite a bit of VFX and color correction, this is the only way we can do it half way decently. Without CF, our final video does not look near as good, I assure you.

Even with CF, without capturing directly from the camera, our chromakey work is difficult. We have a couple of Sony V1's that can capture via the HDMI port, however, which allows us to bypass most of the MPEG2 compression (and is compressed directly by CF).

Bruce,

I realy don’t know how Encore looks like and will it transcode again. As I can understand from you, Encore is for authoring. You shouldn’t give any authoring program to render or rerender your video. It should be done only once and in good mpeg2 encoder – in program which is only for encoding and have nothing to do with authoring. I do it with Vegas which is solid and has Mainconcept encoder. I know Vegas is not ideal to encoding, or there are better encoders out there, so to be more sure, I always use the highest settings.

After you make your final video, you must find something which will author that for BluRay or DVD, but which will not try to rerender again. For DVD it wil be not problems, but for BluRay it may be, and internet is full of such a sad stories.

For BluRay authoring I found that Uleads are great. They have Movie Factories 6 and 7 and Video Studio which is beside authoring good for editing. You need only one of them because they all have more or less the same authoring templates. Ulead MF7 would be ideal. Good with Uleads is that they accept everything, author that without rerendering and everything after that without any problems plays on PS3 (and most other players). I tried Ulead with AVCHD, also not problems at all. Problems here means – it wants to rerender and you don’t want.

I don’t believe that you will have problems if you do your works in 1920x1080, High Level. But, many authoring programs have problems and want to rerender if your video is 1440x1080 High-1440 level. So, why than some people speak that HDV is fully compatible with Blu Ray. Maybe it is, but on special way and not for everyone.

For example, Uleads, when authoring, will not rerender HDV High-1440 level video, but Vegas Architect and Nero 8 will. None of them will rerender 1920x1080 High Level Video. Isn’t that little crazy?

As for Tmpgenc (now much modern Tmpgenc Xpress) it was my first love in mpeg2 encoding. I do encoding now with Vegas because I think it is more practical to do everything in one program and because I believe that for my works I wouldn’t see any difference between Vegas and Tmpgenc mpeg2 encoding. I believe that new modern Tmpgenc Xpress is even better mpeg2 encoder than Vegas now and with more settings. But I think Vegas is very OK. Before, Tmpgenc was very slow (but always very good if the not best quality for the money).

As for GOPs – I can tell you default GOPs from Vegas and I never had problems with such a made GOPs. For NTSC (I am PAL) GOP is long 15, with 2 B pictures in GOP, so it looks like IBBPBBP.... For NTSC and in Vegas GOPs looks like that and are the same for HDV and for so called Full HD Blu Ray templates.


Stephen,

Unfortunately, there is no chance and it would be unpractical for me to capture video before compression. I read about that and my cam could do that, but it is unpractical for me - you know – I am filming outside just for hobby and not in studio. So my realitty will be HDV video from tape.

I found great benefits with HDLink and its upscaling and downscaling. I found that I don’t lose anything as long as I am in Cineform. But, you know, I must go to DVD or Blu Ray (I think I will not use so much AVCHD). I like to correct my video in post. Do you think that Cineform still can make a big benefit to workflow like mine, especially in terms of corrections made to video in post ?

I believe Encore also uses the Mainconcept encoder, but for us, it's mostly a matter of checking our quality before making the DVD. Encore does not have to re-encode mpg's done outside.


If you do any color corrections or VFX (even transitions lilke dissolves), the wavelet compression and 10bit padding used on your Cineformed video will help preserve your video's "apparent" quality (what you'll see will look better). It gives you some additional headroom and helps to minimize banding, especially using CF's 32bit filters. I'm speaking about working through Prospect and CS3/4 now, as we don't use Vegas and don't know if any CF filters are included.

You could still get banding, if Vegas has any 8bit filters and you use them. I don't know the answer to that, but some of the Vegas geeks here most certainly do. Maybe a quick forum search could also answer that.

Thanks Stephen,

I am new here, I read almost whole Cineform forum in last 15 days and my head is full of data. I remember some people were discussing about Vegas and Cineform and the conclusions were something like: yes, but not so like with CS3/4. I will try come back on that treads and carefully read again. And maybe somebody read this tread and answer something.

Anyway, if I invest in Cineform it will be NeoHD (not Scene) because it gives me much more than a half of benefits and it gives me something for sure. And one is also sure, I will not change Vegas for CS or anything else because it would kill me.

Or, my wife would do that. You know, read about cam, read about new cams, read about PS3, read about PC, read about plasma best settings and calibrating, read about all that software, go and look what is Cineform, now Vegas 9 is out and you should read that also.....you must read too much and you read much more than you shoot with your cam - and before 8 months I knew almost everything (about SD).

And you must read, because if you don't - you really very easy can be hooked like Bruce said. Well, I think that he means by that - that he is hooked in possitive way. It is really hard to choose everything right with this HD video today. Like I said before, internet is full of sad stories. People are rendering and rerendering few times, buying too cheap cams but too expensive PCs after that (instead conversely), or rendering with low settings because of too slow PCs, and so on.

But, is it always here on this forum like nowadays - I mean, in big hurry - build 209, than 210, now when I connected I saw 211 is out and new treads about "new issues" ?

What I saw is - with old builds (versions 3) everything worked like a charm for me with my PC and Vegas. I tried build 210 and I saw that when I transform m2t file with new HDLink in Cineform and import that in Vegas 8 and watch that Cineform file in Vegas Histogram - video is without Superblacks and Supewhites - all under 16 and above 235 is gone. Also, it seems that HDLink likes to crash and it is not so stable like before.

I also saw that all my players on PC now play SD 720x576 Cinefom.avi video like 4:3 (but video is PAL Widescreen). I swear, before was everything OK. What is interesting, seems that First Light works OK for me, although most complaints here were on First Light.

Also, I am not thinking about Vegas 9 yet but it is normaly get it one day, but people on that forums say - don't buy Vegas 9 if you use Cineform - wait for Vegas 9a.

It seems that using First Light, much more than filters in Vegas, would compensate for Vegas 8 bit filters. Am I right here?

Ivan, I know what you mean! I've been doing this stuff for a long time, have read many hundreds of articles and studied the ins and outs of it, but our brains (at least mine...) only hold so much info and for just so long. If you get away from it for even just a little while, you can end up buying into a mess. Even if you DO stay up, you can buy into tech that is a dead end street. The world just doesn't stop, and it makes your head spin to try to plug into all that data!!

The truth is, if a previous CF version worked better for you, you can always go back to it. Sometimes w've had to do that in the past.

We're trying this latest Prospect 4K build out now, but see my thread with Dave N. on what I'm finding on some things. I still stand by getting the best results for DVD through using a fullsize CFHD downscaled and converted back to MPEG2 in TMPGEnc. They simply look great.

As to First Light, it would seem you are correct for color. Since it is nondestructive, it's very attractive and if the final output matches the First Light adjustments, CF has a real cost/benefit winner. And that tech will only grow as resolutions go up and 3D comes in.

I can't compare Vegas, as the last version I tried was a very early one, but with CS3 Adobe finally got their act together. If they can fix CS4 to be decent, it will fly us even higher. Combined with CF, we can do now what Hollywood did a very few years ago, with a PC and for many hundreds of thousands of dollars less! With that, the whole video production scene has changed radically. Even the "big guys" at Discovery and other major players are paying attention now.

Stephen/Ivan

I have been out for a few days...

First I still have not figure out your comment about the DVD authoring.. I have been most confused by this and have been trying to figure it all out and I think I agree with you but let me know If I am wrong.

When I capture with CF say 1920x1080 square and edit in CS3/cs4 and export to CF.avi wheather it be full 1920x1080 or 720x480 using CF avi selection in PP formatt option that is just lik using HD link correct?

Now I have a CF high quality AVI.. something has to transcode that and make it a mpeg-2 file. That is what I use Encore for not only To author the DVD but something has to compress it and conver it to mpeg-2 correct ( I think this is the most important step correct)? If I bring the file into Encore as a mpeg-2 I do not think encore will want to transcode the file because it is mpeg-2.. Correct? SO somewhere you need to compress/transcod/render the file to make the DVD/BR disc. For this step I think you are saying you use (Tmpgenc) now you have a mpeg-2 and I can bring that into Encoe to author my DVD with out transcoding again just create menus and comppile DVD format?

Ivan you are correct I am trying to do everyting fight the first time! I am trying to use the best from the start not cutting corners ( well within reason)

TMPGEnc Help
 

Ivan/Stephen

What settings do you use in TMPGEnc/express I am taking your advise and trying it but when I bring the MPEG file into Encore is wants to re-transcode?

Bruce,

It is hard for me to help you because I don’t use Encore and Tmpgenc Xpress. And I am PAL, you are NTSC. I believe you are talking about authoring for DVD here. But I am glad that you are happy with Stephen’s advice and how Tmpgenc is encoding for mpeg2.

I said, I don’t have Premiere Pro CS and Encore CS, but I believe it is something like when you have Sony Vegas and Sony Architect (or TmpgencXpress and Tmpgenc Authoring Works for example).

First ones are (in normal situations) better for mpeg2 encodings, second ones are for authoring (they can also encode if you want – but in normal situations you don’t want that). So, I believe that it is good decision to use Encore only for authoring, because you can always find better than that for encoding (if Encore is for authoring).

For example, I would never use Sony Architect for encoding if I have Vegas Pro, no matter for me if some people speak that it is also very good and how to encode with Architect (I even don’t read such a things).

What is not clear to me (because I don’t have any experience with Premiere) is why you don’t like to encode for mpeg2 with Premiere Pro (is it some problem with it and it don’t do it goood ?).

To help you, you should at least tell people which settings did you use in Tmpgenc. Anyway, maybe they couldn’t help you because they don’t know what Encore is thinking about that because they don’t have Encore.

The fact is, that Encore thinks that your stream from Tmpgenc is not legal. The fact is also that Tmpgenc for sure can make legal streams for Encore but you must find an answer. Some authoring programs are more strict here than other. Some accept everything (that’s why like ULEADs), some don’t – so, who will know ? – only people who tried both (Tmpgenc and Encore).

If nobody here can’t help you, my best advice for you is to try with little examples (10-20 sec. long) starting with default Tmpgenc templates, then change some settings and use the best method so called trial and error to see what is going on.

Because, for DVD there really shouldn’t be any problems with authoring – with trial and error you will find an answer alone, believe me. BluRay is still little different story, but things are getting better and better here also.

And try some other authoring programs to see is it problem with Tmpgenc or Encore. Maybe would be good idea to try one Tmpgenc authoring program (Tmpgenc Authoring Works are for Blu Ray and DVD authoring) to see would it also wants to reencode mpeg2 stream from TmpgencXpress or not.

HI Ivan/Stephen sorry I guess it would help if I did give some information. I have Adobe PPCS3 and CS4 alon with Adobe Encore CS3/CS4 Right now I am testing Tmpgenc 4.0 express and it is awsome!! I can not believe The quality if the 16x9 SD quality that comes out of it and I am now trying my first BD as I type this email.

The problem I am having is after I run my CF.avi master thru Tmpgenc When I go to import it into Encore both versions it crashes about 3 or 4 time then finally accepts it. ENCORE CS3 Doesnot want to retranscode it does see it as a valide mpe-2 file my setting for now I am using the simple setting NTSC/ 720X480 30 FPS CBR 9 MPEGLAYER2 OR DOLBY DIGITAL.

HI Ivan/Stephen sorry I guess it would help if I did give some information. I have Adobe PPCS3 and CS4 alon with Adobe Encore CS3/CS4 Right now I am testing Tmpgenc 4.0 express and it is awsome!! I can not believe The quality if the 16x9 SD quality that comes out of it and I am now trying my first BD as I type this email.

The problem I am having is after I run my CF.avi master thru Tmpgenc When I go to import it into Encore both versions it crashes about 3 or 4 time then finally accepts it. ENCORE CS3 Doesnot want to retranscode it does see it as a valide mpe-2 file my setting for now I am using the simple setting NTSC/ 720X480 30 FPS CBR 9 MPEGLAYER2 OR DOLBY DIGITAL.

I see all the other fine tune setting but I have not learned them or even know what they do maybe you could share some of your settings

CS4 IS A PROBLEM I am not getting any audio from the preview or when I burn the disc?? I think it is really stupid why would CS3 WORK AND NOT CS4?? I am using encore because it came with Adobe Premier pro.

You are correct once once i encode with Tmp I do not want to re encode less is better!! I am not sure why but Adobes encoder is just not that good.. I thought when I went HD 2 months ago it would be no probelm to get SD DVD but I was really wrong!

Stephen,
In reg to your good experiences going from hd to sd..... is the advice to upscale 1440x1080 files to 1920 still good when using acvhd files (m2ts from hg10)? I'm using hdlink prospecthd v4. I think I read they are 1920 if I could bring them in hdmi (don't have a card for that)

Most ACVHD cams are native 1920 sq pix format. So, no rescaling needed in HDLink to get 1920 CF.avi.
The HDMI output reference I believe has to do with actually recording the live video stream into your workstation from the cam HDMI output. This enables you to capture the uncompressed video which will be higher quality imagery than the compressed video that the camera stores on tape or memory (AVCHD, HDV, XDCam, etc.). The obvious downside is the lack of mobility since the work station has to be physically with you & attached to the cam while you shoot.
Upscaling HDV to 1920 CF.avi for editing works great if you are aiming for final output in DVD. Square pix formats (1920x1080) seem to allow a higher quality downscale to SD than the "pixel shifted" 1440x1080 1.33 par of HDV. This is even more evident if the original footage was interlaced.
My DVD workflow for interlaced footage: Edit as 1920x1080 CF.avi; render finished movie to Cineform 720x480 1.2 par avi SD master; I use ProCoder 3 to transcode the SD master avi to m2v (I will frequently tweak the gamma, color sat, & sharpen in ProCoder as part of the transcode); import the m2v into Encore & author the DVD. I keep the field order UFF all the way thru the workflow
My DVD workflow for progressive footage: Edit as 1920x1080 CF.avi; I can usually skip the downscaling to 720x480 avi SD master and encode to m2v (Procoder 3) directly from the 1920x1080 avi master (the final rendered CFHD movie).
I'm sure there are more complex and timeconsuming workflows to end up with marginally better DVD imagery, but I must say that this has given me absolutely the best looking DVDs I have ever made. When viewed on a 50" HDTV from an HDMI "upscaling" DVD player the images look very near HD.
If it needs to be better than that, I go to Blu Ray.
P.S. 1920 footage, well shot with a competent cam, edited as CF, delivered on Blu Ray produces absolutely stunning, breathtaking imagery. IMO it is competitive with the best than can be delivered to HDTV.

My thanks go to everyone who has contributed to this thread.
Great reading.

Hi Gary, and Robert

Very nice video on your sites. What are you using to create the Flash Videos? And what flash players? Also are you starting with a CF.avi and taking straight to flash compression?

Bruce

HI Bruce.
For my own stuff I am using Sorrenson Squeeze.
Im importing the cf file to Squeeze.

I use JWs flash player.

Hi Gary I was looking at the Jws flash player. I can not figure out how to ues it I can not write code? I use Sorrenson Squeeze also... I was looking for something that would wrap the flv and creat the html for me. Sorrenson does that but I am not crazy about their player.

Are you PC or MAc based?

hi Gary I am of

Hi Bruce

If you are a Dreamweaver user you could try

Flash video player WebStunning.com

Playes mp4 as well

Gil

Using Sorenson Squeeze and AME, compressing directly from CFHD. The embedded Flash player is provided by Dreamweaver automatically when the FLV is imported onto the web page.

Hi Gil, Thanks I do not have dreamweaver?(*&^ I have Flash CS4??

Robert not sure what you mean can you point me to the instructions? We are still talking about JWs flash player correct?

Thanks