Quality Question

Shaughan Flynn · August 21st, 2005, 11:18 AM

Thanks for all of the help everyone. I actually got stellar results after trying the trial version of the converter at http://www.dvdxdv.com/HDVxDVsite/Tut....quicktime.htm for the Mac.

Have not really tried the WM9 thing yet. It's frustrating to me that I have to be some kind of an engineer to figure all of this out. I am an artist and photographer that wants to do video. Just wish it was a bit simpler. I know - If it was easy, anyone could do it :)

Shaughan Flynn · August 22nd, 2005, 09:23 AM

Well I tried the WM9 codec last night and finally got very good results. I did an A/B compare against the H.264 HD codec for QT and the H.264 beat it hands down both in terms of output quality and files size. And after a lot of futzing around I did get FCP to use compressor to output H.264 encoded files with quality that rivals the component image from my HDTV. WM9 will have to do until Apple gets the QT7 final out for Windows.

My only complaint with QT on Windows has been that STUPID nag to upgrade to QT pro. But that's another story entirely :)

Again, my thanks to all here that provided guidance on this. This is a great community. Getting this done was a huge burden off of me as I had to have a level of confidence in the quality of the output that I could produce from the Z1.

Kevin Shaw · August 22nd, 2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaughan Flynn

Getting this done was a huge burden off of me as I had to have a level of confidence in the quality of the output that I could produce from the Z1.

JVC claims that starting next month they'll support playback of full-quality HDV files on standard DVDs using their new SRDVD-100U player, which is apparently an updated version of the Avel Linkplayer2. If this is true it would offer another good option for affordable HD distribution, although you'd be limited to about 20-30 minutes of HDV on a single-layer disc.

I've been happy with the quality I get with Windows Media HD using Canopus Procoder Express to do the encoding, and Windows Media appears to be the best choice for now for computer-based HD playback. One problem with H.264 is that the recommended hardware for computer playback (per Apple) is unrealistic for the PC platform, so Windows Media is more practical in that sense.

It will be interesting to see how all the delivery options shape up next year when blue-laser HD DVD players start shipping, and we can compare trade-offs of various options in terms of encoding times, storage requirements, disc and hardware costs and so on.

Shaughan Flynn · August 23rd, 2005, 09:47 AM

The HD format wars seem to be leaning towards blu-ray (thank god).

see http://www.hdforindies.com for some observations on this.

Chris Hurd · August 23rd, 2005, 10:18 AM

Hooray, HD for Indies! I never get tired of seeing that link. Reminds me, I need to run up to Austin to check in on Mike sometime soon. As for Blu-Ray, I'm all for whatever it takes to avoid a long, drawn-out and protracted format war.

Pierre Barberis · August 23rd, 2005, 10:27 AM

One thing seems clear for me;
HD at its current best (1080) is VERY reasonably serviced by WMV ( and will be by H2-264 ) at bit rates of 9MBps.

These rates are PERFECTLY sustainable on TODAY's DVDs. The only point is you need a WMV enabled ( or H264 enabled) DVD player, exactly as you have DIVX enabled players.

These platforms are coming, one of the first ones being commented here
http://www.movietrack.net/articles/news/37.html

Therefore it looks perfectly clear to me that the ONLY reason to push every body to higher density DVDs and higher Bandwith Reader is the need to push new hardware down the pipe , as well as to establish a new technical base to (try to ) restore content protection.

From the general public standpoint , all of this is sheer waste . It is all about re-creating a Copyright environment, and not about providing higher quality video, which can be supported by today's hardware with these new codecs around.

August 23rd, 2005, 10:18 AM	#20
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Hooray, HD for Indies! I never get tired of seeing that link. Reminds me, I need to run up to Austin to check in on Mike sometime soon. As for Blu-Ray, I'm all for whatever it takes to avoid a long, drawn-out and protracted format war. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 23rd, 2005, 10:27 AM	#21
Pierre Barberis Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: MANILA Philippines Posts: 117	Who needs Blu-Ray / Or HD-DVD ?? Content providers, NOT users One thing seems clear for me; HD at its current best (1080) is VERY reasonably serviced by WMV ( and will be by H2-264 ) at bit rates of 9MBps. These rates are PERFECTLY sustainable on TODAY's DVDs. The only point is you need a WMV enabled ( or H264 enabled) DVD player, exactly as you have DIVX enabled players. These platforms are coming, one of the first ones being commented here http://www.movietrack.net/articles/news/37.html Therefore it looks perfectly clear to me that the ONLY reason to push every body to higher density DVDs and higher Bandwith Reader is the need to push new hardware down the pipe , as well as to establish a new technical base to (try to ) restore content protection. From the general public standpoint , all of this is sheer waste . It is all about re-creating a Copyright environment, and not about providing higher quality video, which can be supported by today's hardware with these new codecs around.

August 21st, 2005, 11:18 AM	#16
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	Thanks for all of the help everyone. I actually got stellar results after trying the trial version of the converter at http://www.dvdxdv.com/HDVxDVsite/Tut....quicktime.htm for the Mac. Have not really tried the WM9 thing yet. It's frustrating to me that I have to be some kind of an engineer to figure all of this out. I am an artist and photographer that wants to do video. Just wish it was a bit simpler. I know - If it was easy, anyone could do it :)

August 22nd, 2005, 09:23 AM	#17
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	Well I tried the WM9 codec last night and finally got very good results. I did an A/B compare against the H.264 HD codec for QT and the H.264 beat it hands down both in terms of output quality and files size. And after a lot of futzing around I did get FCP to use compressor to output H.264 encoded files with quality that rivals the component image from my HDTV. WM9 will have to do until Apple gets the QT7 final out for Windows. My only complaint with QT on Windows has been that STUPID nag to upgrade to QT pro. But that's another story entirely :) Again, my thanks to all here that provided guidance on this. This is a great community. Getting this done was a huge burden off of me as I had to have a level of confidence in the quality of the output that I could produce from the Z1.

August 23rd, 2005, 09:47 AM	#19
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	The HD format wars seem to be leaning towards blu-ray (thank god). see http://www.hdforindies.com for some observations on this.