Update - I rendered a previously captured MPEG2 (HDV) to DivX in HD using the recommended insane quality. I am typing this reply as it's rending. CPU utilization seems to be split between both cores now and overall 87%. It was 99% with both CPU's showing the same utilization at any point in time.
This is a great improvement over the non-SP1 VS10+.
Good luck all....
Kevin
HD Video - editing and watching in Media Center - XBOX360
Moderator: Ken Berry
Thanks for the info.
The reason I'm trying to avoid using Divx is because I don't want to lose my cpu for 20 hours to render one miniDV tape. And I also don't want to buy another dvd player to view them (if burning them.) $100-300$ is cheap compared to HD-DVD/Bluray NOW but it probably won't be in the future. Plus, no matter what you get now I think we all agree that we'll all end up with the winner of the HD-DVD/BluRay war.
Of course the opposite end of the spectrum is having to use mediacenter. I guess one thing that I should be asking/clarifying is-Can I replace my normal XP with WinMediaCenter on my (currently) non-media center pc? I used to think that you have to *start with a media center pc but thought otherwise when I saw the media center os available for seperate purchase.
So what I really need to know is if the video played in rendered mpeg2 (was native mpeg2) through transcode360/xbox as good quality as when you hook up your camera directly to the same tv? If not, or if close even, is DivxHD actually better quality/less/same? Is everyone liking Divx more because of the options available with it or because of the picture quality?
I know I'm asking a lot and I'm not lazy but this isn't something I can test on my own. In order to test it then I have to actually get Media Center, back up my pc, install a new os, d/l transcode, etc,etc. You get the picture...(no pun intended)
The reason I'm trying to avoid using Divx is because I don't want to lose my cpu for 20 hours to render one miniDV tape. And I also don't want to buy another dvd player to view them (if burning them.) $100-300$ is cheap compared to HD-DVD/Bluray NOW but it probably won't be in the future. Plus, no matter what you get now I think we all agree that we'll all end up with the winner of the HD-DVD/BluRay war.
Of course the opposite end of the spectrum is having to use mediacenter. I guess one thing that I should be asking/clarifying is-Can I replace my normal XP with WinMediaCenter on my (currently) non-media center pc? I used to think that you have to *start with a media center pc but thought otherwise when I saw the media center os available for seperate purchase.
So what I really need to know is if the video played in rendered mpeg2 (was native mpeg2) through transcode360/xbox as good quality as when you hook up your camera directly to the same tv? If not, or if close even, is DivxHD actually better quality/less/same? Is everyone liking Divx more because of the options available with it or because of the picture quality?
I know I'm asking a lot and I'm not lazy but this isn't something I can test on my own. In order to test it then I have to actually get Media Center, back up my pc, install a new os, d/l transcode, etc,etc. You get the picture...(no pun intended)
-
jchunter
Ebone,
Divx is only useful because it can store a couple of hours of good quality high definition video on a conventional DVD or an external hard drive with a 4GB limit on file size. Picture quality is as good as what comes off the camcorder.
If you want to stream HD video, of any size, from a hard drive on any PC, look into the IOData AVLP2, which supports video streaming in real time over a local area network. But it also supports playback from an external hard drive, which is a whole lot simpler, and doesn't involve a PC.
I don't know what a Media Center PC brings to the HD party, other than a fancy marketing label... Is it required for using the Xbox360? I have not seen anyone announcing success with viewing HD on the Xbox, although lots of people are asking the same questions that you are...
Divx is only useful because it can store a couple of hours of good quality high definition video on a conventional DVD or an external hard drive with a 4GB limit on file size. Picture quality is as good as what comes off the camcorder.
If you want to stream HD video, of any size, from a hard drive on any PC, look into the IOData AVLP2, which supports video streaming in real time over a local area network. But it also supports playback from an external hard drive, which is a whole lot simpler, and doesn't involve a PC.
I don't know what a Media Center PC brings to the HD party, other than a fancy marketing label... Is it required for using the Xbox360? I have not seen anyone announcing success with viewing HD on the Xbox, although lots of people are asking the same questions that you are...
Just to clarify:
You said, Divx can store "good quality HD" and "then as good as what comes off the camcorder".
So you're saying with Divx you do not lose any discernable quality, correct?
See, I confused for several reasons and am trying to figure it out. My captured HD vid [mpg2] (followed instructions here) looks okay but doesn't look nearly as good as on my HDTV. I don't know if that's just a normal situation with monitors or if you lose that much quality when capturing/rendering.
I guess the only way to tell would be to capture, render, then put my render back onto a new mini-dv tape then take to the tv and playback.
To sum it up, on my pc the video looks very good-dont' get me wrong, but nothing that makes you say wow. On my HDTV, I've had 4 different people say that it looks BETTER than real life.
You said, Divx can store "good quality HD" and "then as good as what comes off the camcorder".
So you're saying with Divx you do not lose any discernable quality, correct?
See, I confused for several reasons and am trying to figure it out. My captured HD vid [mpg2] (followed instructions here) looks okay but doesn't look nearly as good as on my HDTV. I don't know if that's just a normal situation with monitors or if you lose that much quality when capturing/rendering.
I guess the only way to tell would be to capture, render, then put my render back onto a new mini-dv tape then take to the tv and playback.
To sum it up, on my pc the video looks very good-dont' get me wrong, but nothing that makes you say wow. On my HDTV, I've had 4 different people say that it looks BETTER than real life.
-
jchunter
Ebone,
In my tests with a resolution chart, Divx is as good at 6 - 8 Mbps video bitrate as Mpeg2 HDV is at 25Mbps bitrate. If you drop the bitrate, the Divx file begins to show macro blocking in dark regions.
Divx can never be better than the original Mpeg2 because it is derived from it.
My captured HDV, played on the PC with Media Player Classic, is everybit as sharp as my HDTV - sharper, in fact. What are you using to playback?
If you want to quantitatively measure and compare resolution, you have to use a resolution chart. You can't do comparisons with general scenes.
Try the following:
When I first got the HDR-HC1, I printed out an ISO12233 resolution chart on four 8.5x11 sheets of paper (this keeps the printer from limiting resolution), taped the sheets to a wall, set the HC1 on a tripod about 8 feet away, and shot several 10 second clips in different lighting intensities.
Now you have the res chart recorded on tape and can compare the resolution at every stage of the edit process and between different display devices.
In my tests with a resolution chart, Divx is as good at 6 - 8 Mbps video bitrate as Mpeg2 HDV is at 25Mbps bitrate. If you drop the bitrate, the Divx file begins to show macro blocking in dark regions.
Divx can never be better than the original Mpeg2 because it is derived from it.
My captured HDV, played on the PC with Media Player Classic, is everybit as sharp as my HDTV - sharper, in fact. What are you using to playback?
If you want to quantitatively measure and compare resolution, you have to use a resolution chart. You can't do comparisons with general scenes.
Try the following:
When I first got the HDR-HC1, I printed out an ISO12233 resolution chart on four 8.5x11 sheets of paper (this keeps the printer from limiting resolution), taped the sheets to a wall, set the HC1 on a tripod about 8 feet away, and shot several 10 second clips in different lighting intensities.
Now you have the res chart recorded on tape and can compare the resolution at every stage of the edit process and between different display devices.
That sounds like a great way to test it (res chart). I will have to try that soon.
As far as what I'm using to view...
I'm using media player classic per your suggestion. I've also tried using the WinDVD7 that came with my vs10+ cd. It actually looks better when viewing with the winDVD than the media player classic. I'm sure that at least part of it is the fact that WinDVD has a better "presentation" with the border blacked out,etc. and that makes it look somewhat better.
I will need to do the resolution comparison to really know I guess. But I wonder if it's maybe the plasma looking so good rather than the cpu monitor looking bad. I think maybe there's something about the plasma just making the colors look so vivid and rich that maybe I'm thinking it looks better than it does. I wasn't kidding when I said that 4 different people at 4 different times without being baited said,"wow, that video looks actually better than real time."
oh yeah, I'm using an HC3 in case you didn't know. Shouldn't matter with anything we're discussing I don't think.
As far as what I'm using to view...
I'm using media player classic per your suggestion. I've also tried using the WinDVD7 that came with my vs10+ cd. It actually looks better when viewing with the winDVD than the media player classic. I'm sure that at least part of it is the fact that WinDVD has a better "presentation" with the border blacked out,etc. and that makes it look somewhat better.
I will need to do the resolution comparison to really know I guess. But I wonder if it's maybe the plasma looking so good rather than the cpu monitor looking bad. I think maybe there's something about the plasma just making the colors look so vivid and rich that maybe I'm thinking it looks better than it does. I wasn't kidding when I said that 4 different people at 4 different times without being baited said,"wow, that video looks actually better than real time."
oh yeah, I'm using an HC3 in case you didn't know. Shouldn't matter with anything we're discussing I don't think.
-
jchunter
I have a 50" panasonic. (TH-50PX50U). My father has this years model (60u) I believe which is nearly the same except better contrast ratio.
I did lots of research before getting HDTV (reading and viewing) and became sold on plasma. Don't get me wrong, there are excellent deals on other types of tv's-projection,etc. and you could make an argument that you get "more for the money" with projection. But IMO plasma can't be touched for overall quality of picture. My dad has a nice proj lcd and now a plasma. The plasma smokes the LCD when viewing the same source.
*at the time of my purchase(christmas '05) flat panel LCD was overpriced so I didn't research them a lot. They have come down since however but I dont' know too much about them.
Plasma has come down so much in price that "more for your money" is becoming less of an issue.
Burn-in and brightness fade are no longer issues with plasma (if they ever were) and should have nothing to do with your decision.
All that being said, I found panasonic to have (by far) the best picture in that price range. The key is this...the default for panasonic plasmas is the 'vivid' picture setting. This is what they'll always be set on in the store. It makes the colors brighter and they stand out more hence a better showroom presentation. I think vivid looks like crap however because it makes skin tones very red and fake looking. If you go to the 'normal' setting and put them on the same numbers as 'vivid' you get a very detailed and real looking picture with very vibrant colors.
Also, and as you probably already know, the tv's will look much different in 'real' viewing conditions at home without all the bright lights,etc.
Probably more info than you asked for...
I did lots of research before getting HDTV (reading and viewing) and became sold on plasma. Don't get me wrong, there are excellent deals on other types of tv's-projection,etc. and you could make an argument that you get "more for the money" with projection. But IMO plasma can't be touched for overall quality of picture. My dad has a nice proj lcd and now a plasma. The plasma smokes the LCD when viewing the same source.
*at the time of my purchase(christmas '05) flat panel LCD was overpriced so I didn't research them a lot. They have come down since however but I dont' know too much about them.
Plasma has come down so much in price that "more for your money" is becoming less of an issue.
Burn-in and brightness fade are no longer issues with plasma (if they ever were) and should have nothing to do with your decision.
All that being said, I found panasonic to have (by far) the best picture in that price range. The key is this...the default for panasonic plasmas is the 'vivid' picture setting. This is what they'll always be set on in the store. It makes the colors brighter and they stand out more hence a better showroom presentation. I think vivid looks like crap however because it makes skin tones very red and fake looking. If you go to the 'normal' setting and put them on the same numbers as 'vivid' you get a very detailed and real looking picture with very vibrant colors.
Also, and as you probably already know, the tv's will look much different in 'real' viewing conditions at home without all the bright lights,etc.
Probably more info than you asked for...
-
jchunter