How to change quality of picture? Thus change volume to burn

[GarryLPM]

Your choice of what you call "macro level" settings is what determines how many bits are lost - and in exactly what manner they're lost.

Sorry I guess I just can¡¦t get through to you, it¡¦s like I¡¦m A/C and you¡¦re D/C, we might have the same electrical power but one of us needs to convert to the others¡¦ type of current in order to complete the electrical circuit. In relation to your above quote, I never used ¡§macro¡¨ as adjustment level in my previous post. I was using ¡¥macro¡¦ as a means to simplify the aim of solving your question, whereas the word ¡¥micro¡¦ was used in the context of trying to prevent you from cerebrally plotting out your answer in minute details.

It¡¦s like you asking me how are anthills constructed? Where I would give you a ¡¥macro¡¦ simplified answer such as how the entire colony of ants each gather bits of sand and eventually build a small mound with an entranceway at the top. You would be trying to solve this answer in terms of a complicated ¡¥micro¡¦ mathematical equation. You would want to know if these were red or black ants, what¡¦s the average carrying capacity of an ant vis-à-vis its weight, how much does grain of sand weigh, how many ants are approximately working per hour, what¡¦s the distance the ants need to travel from sand source to anthill, etc. You would be going into absolutely and completely unnecessary excruciating details in order to try to solve how anthills are constructed through some sort of vast mathematical formula.

The bottom line is that in terms of what I¡¦ve mentioned in my postings to solve the question of how do you change the quality of picture so that you can manipulate the volume on your DVD burns; I solved it. At a completely ¡¥macro¡¦ level of understanding all you have to do is follow my instructions because it works¡Xperiod! You¡¦re still stuck back at your ¡¥micro¡¦ level of thinking ¡¥about what happens to all that data and where does it go¡¦; who the hell cares!

So to sum up our dilemma, I¡¦m A/C and you¡¦re D/C, were not completing an electric circuit because we have two different streams of electric current flowing through us. All I can advise you to do is put a transformer on your thought process and convert it to a simple ¡¥macro¡¦ way of looking at this problem. Forget about trying to mathematically figure out where all data is going and just have some fun by actual experimenting. Just do the process I¡¦ve presented in my posts and forget about trying to understand this conversion process at the ¡¥micro¡¦ mathematical level.

If you want to delve into complex mathematical equations, work on string theory but with video conversion you just do it, you don¡¦t have to scientifically figure out what is actually happening.

A/C out!!

[Velojet]

OK, Garry, let's step back a bit, take this in easy stages and see if we can arrive at a shared understanding.

Here's what vidoman and I have a problem with: you appear to think that you can take your SP compressed MPEG and convert it to HQ when you write it out to DVD.

Is that so? Are you in fact thinking that you can improve the quality of your SP compressed MPEG when you record it to your dual-layer DVD disk?

Please clarify for us whether this is your understanding, then we can take it from there.

Thanks!

[GarryLPM]

Try it yourself, there's nothing more for me to say! I just passed on to the forum what method worked for me nothing more and nothing less. If you want to save yourself money and watch downloaded movies at the best quality possible while still getting it burned on a DVD RW then do what I suggested. You can then erase your 4.7 GB disc and burn something else and perform this same procedure over and over and over again. If you want to waste your money and burn movies on valuable nonrewitable dual layer discs then that's your choice.

There's nothing more for me to explain. There's nothing more for me to clarify. I just posted an alternative method for burning DVD's to fellow users of Ulead's DVD MovieFactory.

Try it--if you like it, fine and if you don't I honestly don't care. I'm not here to convince people like you of my person opinion, all I'm doing is posting an alternative method for burning DVD's. That's what this forum is all about (post a question and get a solution) and in terms of this particular topic thread, look at my question--has my question been answered? Yes it has so there's nothing more to say on this specifically targeted subject--got it?

Bye!

[Ron P.]

Garry,

Rest assured, we got it, more then you think. We have been through this stuff over and over. What you posted is contrary to how a DVD is produced. There is one thing the Velojet and I, (along with several others that just choose not to post), is we know what is happening in your procedure, that tells us that you don't fully understand what is taking place.

You initiated this, yet I'm reading in your last post, now that you may have to admit that your process is not what you think, then you are cutting and running. If not then you would have answered Velojet's question.

[maddrummer3301]

.

[GarryLPM]

You imported a DVD Mpeg2 Compliant Video File and you have Do Not Convert DVD Mpeg2 Compliant Files checked ON
Your HQ (HighQuality Setting) is being IGNORED (lucky for you),except for the menu's & any background audio if used.

Yes I know that, I¡¦m not an imbecile---after all I have 2 university degrees and I can read! In the ¡¥Project Settings¡¦ window it says right directly beneath the button for ¡¥Change MPEG Settings¡¦ it says ¡¥Display aspect ratio¡¦ and underneath that is an option ¡¥Do not convert compliant MPEG files¡¦. There¡¦s no luck involved because I know how to read the instructions! And I of course put a checkmark beside this option! Is there anything else so obvious that you wish to tell me? Try it yourself and understand the instructions! Before you add a new project go into ¡¥Project Settings¡¦ then put a checkmark beside this option. Also with ¡¥Change MPEG Settings¡¦ set it for the highest quality picture and sound. But remember what you shrunk your MPEG down to before, I set mine to SP, now click OK. What this means is if my MPEG isn¡¦t compliant to what I just set it to (the highest quality), the application will change it and it will take up a larger volume on the DVD. Now when I click on add video files and import my MPEG it reads 3.24 (3.47) GB/ 2 hour 22 Min 35 Sec. Now delete that video clip by a single left click on the icon then right click and then click delete. Now go back to the ¡¥Project Settings¡¦ window, keeping the MPEG conversion to the highest picture and sound quality, just take off the checkmark of ¡¥Do not convert compliant MPEG files¡¦ and click OK. When I go back and add that MPEG movie again, now it says the amount of room this movie has taken up is 2.79 (3.00) GB/ 2 Hour 22 Min 35 Sec! It shrunk but why? Because it never converted my MPEG to a higher quality of picture and sound; thus it never expanded! Go ahead try it for yourself, remember if you put a checkmark beside ¡¥Do not convert compliant MPEG files¡¦ and if the file is NOT an MPEG at HQ 4:3 (Dolby Digital), which mine is not (it¡¦s an SP 4:3) it will convert it to your new setting! Thus since my MPEG was shrunk at an SP 4:3 setting, it¡¦s not compliant with my new higher setting so the software will convert my MPEG to a HQ 4:3 (Dolby Digital) MPEG. As a result of the higher picture resolution and Dolby Digital sound, this newly converted MPEG will take up more room on the DVD!

Rest assured, we got it, more then you think. We have been through this stuff over and over. What you posted is contrary to how a DVD is produced. There is one thing the Velojet and I, (along with several others that just choose not to post), is we know what is happening in your procedure, that tells us that you don't fully understand what is taking place.

That¡¦s completely irrelevant! Just as I told fellow Ulead users about the application AVI-MUX GUI in relation to my thread regarding fixing audio sync problems, it¡¦s completely irrelevant to the average software user to know the mathematical process of what is happening behind the scenes! All the average software user wants to know is how to use the software; it¡¦s irrelevant to the task at hand how AVI-MUX GUI works in the background. You are completely and I mean it in every sense of the word a menace to the average Ulead user! People want to know how to use the software, it¡¦s completely and utterly irrelevant to know what is happening---that¡¦s the software¡¦s purpose. Before I found AVI-MUX GUI I had looked over so many self-help web boards that I was going bonkers and most of the posts were from people with your frame of mind. All these computer geeks kept arguing with each other about the audio and video process. I download so many complex applications that these so-called purists insisted was the best way to fix audio sync problems. Many of these convoluted applications involved manually separating out the audio and video streams. After that step then the fireworks went off, there were so many diverse opinions and software suggestions on how to integrate the two data streams back into one in film. I finally found one person on a small experimental video web site mentioning to his fellow amateur film editors about a simple application called AVI-MUX GUI; the rest is history.

So Vidoman you¡¦re a menace and an embarrassment to this forum when you insist users of Ulead¡¦s DVD MovieFactory need to understand what¡¦s taking place within the application. And further to the point by trying to ask users technical and irrelevant questions to their queries as way to help, this line of questioning is completely useless and harmful. Users post questions to the forum in order to get answers how to use Ulead¡¦s software, it¡¦s irrelevant for them to know what the software is doing. All users want is an explanation and a breakdown of simplified instructions on how to use their software¡Xnothing more! Please refer to my instructions on how to use AVI-MUX GUI in my thread ¡¥Audio/video out of sync¡¦ and in this particular thread on how I compressed an AVI file into a more manageable MPEG file by using the ¡¥Export Video¡¦ option. And how I then saved that MPEG file to my hard drive, reintegrated back into DVD MovieFactory as a new project and proceeded to burn it with the highest picture and sound quality settings. These two threads and my instructions on how to solve the problem are what users need; they don¡¦t need a lecture on the mathematical complexities of data conversion. And it¡¦s absolutely harmful in the guise of problem solving with the appearance of helping someone to ask them technical and irrelevant questions!

If you¡¦re honestly interested in the underlying principle of film editing, you¡¦re not only in the wrong self-help web site but you¡¦re using the wrong software! DVD MovieFactory is a basic burning application that has a very limited editing capacity. If your passions truly run in the more complex forms of the editing field, you need a much more in-depth software package. DVD MovieFactory is for beginners but if you¡¦ve truly advanced beyond this level then I have to wonder why you¡¦re still stuck hanging around this web board and are still using this type of basic software? And if you¡¦re knowledge of film editing so profound, why aren¡¦t working at a studio where hourly rental fees run in the range of a few 100¡¦s dollars per hour to many thousands of dollars per hour. In relationship to those type studios, Ulead¡¦s DVD MovieFactory application looks very Mickey Mouse!

So when all is said and done, people in this self-help web board just need simple instructions to solve their basic questions. Your ranting and raving about understanding the underlying technical aspects of video editing is not only irrelevant but can be downright confusing to users and ultimately is harmful in finding a solution. So why do it? Please don¡¦t answer that, this is a rhetorical question!

[maddrummer3301]

.

[Velojet]

Well, I had decided not to contribute further to this thread, having given up all hope of ever showing GarryLPM where he's going wrong.

But then I thought, I do have a responsibility to newbies who could be misled into thinking that there might be some merit in GarryLPM's 'advice', and that you really can improve the quality of your movie by converting it from a SP MPEG to a HQ MPEG.

You can't! I've said it (and I have over 20 years experience in writing data compression/conversion software), vidoman has said it, maddrummer3301 has said it, but still GarryLPM insists that "the software will convert my [SP] MPEG to a HQ 4:3 (Dolby Digital) MPEG". It won't improve the quality! (In fact, as maddrummer3301 points out, it may even degrade it further.)

Here's why not. Suppose you have frames in your movie with a close-up of your friend against a plain cream wall. A naughty fly has left a spot on that wall, plainly visible in playback of your DV tape. Then, in MovieFactory (or any other video editing software), you convert that file to SP MPEG format.

Because your SP MPEG has to occupy less space, the software samples your DV-AVI tape and tries to make the best approximation in the limited file space it has. Unfortunately, some minor detail has to go. The important feature in this area of these frames is the cream-coloured wall, so the SP sampling takes that as most typical of the area and simply (and rightly!) ignores the flyspot.

And once that flyspot is gone, no amount of higher quality (= finer) sampling is ever going to put it back. How could it? That detail - and lots and lots of similar detail - has been lost for ever.

That's it in 250 words, but a picture's worth four times that, so here's my picture of the process:



Teaser: why might the SP to HQ conversion "even degrade it further" ?