Ulead Movie Factory 5 vs Adobe Premium Elements 2

[casawaikiki]

Adobe vs Ulead

I just did a comparision test on Adobe Premium Elements 2 vs Ulead Dvd Movie Factory 5. I was surprised at the results.

Both processed avi into mpg and burned a dual layer Dvd at about the same speeds. Adobe did it in 2.75 hours and Ulead did it in 2.5 hours.

I compared the quality. Both were burned at maximum quality setting using mpg. The image quality was slightly better using Adobe. The Ulead displayed jagged edges on the bottom and it actually "distorted" the images slightly from the original. I am certain of this because I compared the stills of the processed avi from Ulead and Adobe using Virtual Dub. It's easy to see the difference side by side. And super easy to see the difference when comparing the original with the processed files.

I did this same test using 2 different avi files. Both produced the same result. The Adobe was slightly more detailed and produced an almost exact duplicate of the original when converted into mpg. Ulead did not do this on both my tests. It changed the original and make people look slightly fatter. You could not notice this if you just watched the video, but I noticed it when watching both processed dvds at same time using my split screen large high definition tv!

I was going to buy the Ulead because it seemed more fancy with features than Adobe. And I always heard Adobe was always so slow in processing fles, but now, I will stay with Adobe. I will probably upgrade to the Adobe Premium Elements 3 now.

I know this is a Ulead site so if anyone knows why Ulead did not perform to higher standards, please let me know. And I know I didn't put all the details, but in the end, Ulead did not perform as well as Adobe.

Oh, and Just one more note. I have used Virtual Dub for a long time. And now I am losing confidence in it. I have the latest version now. It seems the default "full processing" mode does not process an avi file cleanly. I learned this the hard way.. because I deleted my original avi files before realizing that Virtual Dub creates errors and minor distortions when using the "full processing" mode. It does a PERFECT job if you just use the "direct stream" settings. I still love Virtual Dub for editing. Its great for deleting junk frames, but I will never rely on it to reprocess my avi files. It messed up many of my home movies and this was done using several versions over the past few years and over several computers.

Hope this info helps somebody.

charlie

Moved to the General Discussions, DVD Forum, from the MovieFactory forum, by vidoman, moderator

[Bobm03]

Anyone who uses "the stills of the processed avi" to compare the quality of two different programs (DVDMF creates avi's - who knew?) would probably count the rpm's of the wheels to determine which vehicle gets the best gasoline mileage.

What is your starting video? VHS, Digital Video, DVD, Off-the Air? How are you capturing? What exactly are you "cleaning up" by using Virtual Dub?

You'll have to validate your procedures before I, as a happy and satisfied DVDMF user, can take your comments seriously.

[sjj1805]

If Ulead made people fatter then the obvious conclusion is that you have an incorrect setting somewhere. Perhaps you have 4.3 videos but tried creating a 16.9 out of it.

There's a bit more to it than a simple side by side comparison - all of the settings have to match up - frame size, frame rates, bitrate settings so on and so forth.

[maddrummer3301]

.

[Scooterspal]

Can you tell me if the Adobe program creates slide shows from pictures like MF5 will do?

BTW: If you use anything other than "direct steam copy" mode in VirtualDub then you are using the codec you have selected. There WILL be compression and decompression going on in the final file so it will be affected by the process. It's alway a generation away from the original in that case.

[Velojet]

What exactly are you "cleaning up" by using Virtual Dub?
You'll have to validate your procedures before I, as a happy and satisfied DVDMF user, can take your comments seriously.

Yes, charlie, I too am puzzled by your references to VirtualDub. Where exactly does it fit into your workflow? I can't see the need for it if you're using Adobe PE and Ulead DVDMF to make DVDs from (I assume) DV-AVI tapes. Introducing VirtualDub into this process would surely distort and invalidate your conclusions, wouldn't it?

Further explanations, please!

[Velojet]

In respect of the central topic of discussion in this thread ("a comparision test on Adobe Premium Elements 2 vs Ulead Dvd Movie Factory 5"), you may be interested in tests on video editing software carried out in the laboratory of British consumer organisation Which for the New Zealand Consumer organisation. Ulead VideoStudio 10 (which, as I understand it, uses the same encoding engine as Movie Factory 5) came out clearly ahead of Adobe Premiere Elements 2.0.

Here are the detailed results:

Ulead VideoStudio 10 - Overall 86%

• Performance (/10) 8.5
  Ease of use (/10) 9.4
  Versatility (/10) 8.1

Adobe Premiere Elements 2.0 - Overall 76%

• Performance (/10) 7.8
  Ease of use (/10) 8.1
  Versatility (/10) 6.8

Here's what each item was measuring:

• Performance (40% of overall score) Based on picture and sound quality, speed, and quality of the final DVD.
  Ease of use (30% of overall score) Based on how easy it was to perform a range of tasks, including installing the software, capturing and editing video, using special effects, editing and burning a DVD, and the quality of the help files.
  Versatility (30%) Based on a range of features including widescreen, special effects, advanced disk tools and DVD options.

So, on the criteria in question in this thread (picture and sound quality, speed, and quality of the final DVD), Ulead comes up well ahead of Adobe (8.5 v. 7.8).

I'm pleased about these results because they confirm my own evaluation of the Adobe and Ulead products done earlier this year.

[htchien]

I'm just wondering why the original poster only made one post and highlight Adobe.

Actually Ulead and Adobe were using the same MPEG encoding engine from MainConcept before DVDMF 4 / VS 9 / MSP 7, but since DVDMF 5 / VS 10 / MSP 8 the Ulead MPEG.Now engine is been fine-tuned by both InterVideo and Ulead engineers.

In my opinion Ulead MPEG.Now engine is better than Adobe's, but it's only my own opinion and might not be countable.

H.T.

[Velojet]

In my opinion Ulead MPEG.Now engine is better than Adobe's, but it's only my own opinion and might not be countable.
H.T.

Maybe, but the NZ Consumer/Which test confirms your opinion, HT!

[casawaikiki]

its a mute point anyway with technology changing so fast. But I only described my experience. I never intended it to challenge experts.

As a layman in video editing, I can only do what I can do trying to follow the directions from the companies, in this case... Adobe and Ulead. I actually had a higher opinion of Ulead before I did my so called test. I hated Adobe because it always froze my older computer.

As for all the technical terms in bitrates etc. I used the maximum settings that each program provided. And i'm sure most of you people know, each program including many others, all don't let you control bitrates in detail and choosing one pass or two pass and other settings.

I've use many programs for editing including Movie Star, Pinnacle Studio, Nero, DVD Movie Factory, Sony DV Gate Plus, InterVideo, Click to DVD and my goal has always been to maintain the highest quality from my DV tapes before transfering to DVD.

I used Virtual Dub for editing because I thought it processed with the least about of generation loss. But now I only use it for deleting bad frames. I did my comparison tests of Adobe and Ulead using Virtual Dub without activating any enhancements or editing.

Anyway.... I am not an expert with any product. I can only say I did my best to use Adobe and Ulead to their maximum ability in making the highest quality of DVD. Never claimed to be a scientist

thanks for reading about my experiene and thanks for your comments.