quality vs fluid motion

[ann hackett]

I have read the tutorials ...
In the compression tab I understand that the slider alters "quality" but the tutorial says that this is at the expense of "fluid motion". I would have thought that these two things were inextricably linked - how can you have a high quality video without fluid motion? Perhaps I don't understand what is really meant by fluid motion? I planned to put slider to 100%, but now I'm not so sure. Grateful for help on this.

[TDK1044]

The only reason to select anything other than 100 percent quality in video studio would be if your project contained an unusually high number of panning camera shots where fluid motion could be an issue. I render all of my projects at 100 percent quality.

[Ken Berry]

I conversely have never moved the quality slider from its default setting of 70%. While ultimately it can affect final quality, the quality slider is more correctly a quality/time slider. The default setting is supposed to represent Video Studio's assessment of your computer resources, and provide a balance between a high quality output produced in a reasonable amount of time. Increasing the quality setting of the slider will increase the overall processing time, in some cases, greatly. This might be particularly the case where your video contains lots of panning and/or zooming shots which require a lot more analysis in order to ensure a higher quality.

The bottom line is, though, whether any fractional increase in the final quality obtained this way is in fact visible to the naked eye. In my case, I have never been able to detect any observable difference in the final quality at 70% from that obtained at a higher setting. And I have almost invariably been more than pleased with the final quality. So I stick to the default and my renders normally take no more than 1.25 to 1.5 times real time (i.e. if I have a one hour project, it takes 1 hr 15 minutes to 1 hr 30 minutes to render). That is, of course, on my computer which will be different from yours (see my System button for details).

I might also note that with computers that are not overly well resourced, you could even experience a freezing of the computer if you make this setting too high. That is because the computer does not have the resources to carry out the extra load of minute analysis which is required.

The only way to find out if raising the slider to 100% -- or above the default -- does actually provide a perceptible increase in quality, is to actually try it at various levels. And of course you also have to assess whether the time it takes for such an increase is really worth it. Mind you, you could always simply leave the rendering to be done while you are asleep overnight...

[TDK1044]

The 70 percent quality reading is a Ulead default setting. It has been there for me on 4 different computers that I've owned with very different capabilities. Unlike Ken, I did see a quality difference in the end result when the slider was set at 70 percent, and yet my rendering time was only marginally slower at 100 percent. It's a judgement call I guess.

[ann hackett]

thanks to you both - i get it now

[Ken Berry]

TDK is quite correct, and my eyes might be getting a bit old! But it just emphasises my point that you should try the higher settings yourself and see whether any perceived increase in quality is worth any significant increase in processing time.

[daniel]

and, although Ken and TDK could discuss for hours about their eyes and tolerance factor, what difference can be visible at moments between 70 and 95% setting, is certainly very different that what happens between 90 and 100. Quality VS price (here time) is always exponential.

In several places (but I'm not Steve and don't have links ready) you read that MPG and JPG compression settings above 95 (or 98 sometimes) are lost resources, i.e. for video, lost time without results, for image bloated size without difference. Excluding very specific, unnatural, test cases.

Comments (not personal criticism):

TDK: I know when I capture to MPG, if I set over 80% I loose a few frames, at 75% none, at 85 many, so there is a performance hit.

Ken: I have old eyes, old ears, old half-brains and the rest, but I definitely see the difference between the canonical 70 and 100. Make stills with a 1 or 2 seconds turn page or album transition, or a swirl, or a video slide/wipe with the two videos panning in opposite directions and 70% is not enough.
(I agree 100% is overkill but don't know better; I never tested comparatively at 70; 75; 80 etc).

[TDK1044]

Comments (not personal criticism):

TDK: I know when I capture to MPG, if I set over 80% I loose a few frames, at 75% none, at 85 many, so there is a performance hit.

Point taken, Daniel, but I never use video studio to capture footage...it's way too unreliable for me in regard to that function. I capture using dedicated capture software and then import into VS.

I've always done everthing within VS at 100 percent and have had no issues relative to quality at all. Zooms, pans etc are always perfect for me, so for me "if it aint broke, don't fix it".

[GeorgeW]

There are variables at play that could determine how much a difference you could actually see...

For instance, I suspect you would start to see more of a difference in resulting quality when using lower encoding bitrates.

Another variable would be the video content being encoded. Talking heads interview with little movement vs. Sporting Event with all fast-action scenes.

And then there's the video source -- was it an old analog tape, or did the video come from one of the HDV Camcorders?

And don't forget the style of editing -- some folks might use long fades/transitions, while others might use cuts-only.

Then there's the viewing screen -- watch a VCD on a 9-inch TV, and it can look crystal clear. Watch it on a 52-inch TV, and it can start to look pixelated.

And terms of encoding times -- that will depend on the users' computer horsepower and configuration (some might not notice a difference because their computer is so fast, others might be painfully chomping at the bit because their computer is so slow).

Well, you get the idea... Different folks will have different opinions (based on what they are seeing, and based on their variables).

Regards,
George

[maddrummer3301]

.