Work flows

[Gisela Richter]

Since Steve published his famous "Suggested Work Flow" the term has become standard, but it is no other than a tutorial taking you through the steps from the camcorder to the DVD. There are, of course, several others, and recently Neel Mehta has added a basic tutorial for beginners.
I was not alone in having some trouble understanding Steve's work flow, and with all due respects to Steve, and he indeed merits them for all the invaluable tutorials he has offered us, some of which I have on my hard drive for quick reference, I find Jerry Jones' tutorial (jonesgroup.net) a little easier to follow. Trevor Andrew's tutorial (uk.geocities.com) is also worth perusing.
All three authors give basically the same advice which boils down to this:
Conversion (rendering) inevitably causes a loss of quality, so we must make every effort to keep it down to the strict minimum, particularly as Ulead does not hesitate to re-render even when it is not necessary. The way to prevent this is to make a new file at every step, Steve calls them Movie A, Movie B, Movie C. In this way you can make sure that the Project settings remain constant, and when you finally have your DVD-compliant Mpeg2 file you can burn it without any further rendering. Trevor goes as far as saying that if Ulead nevertheless starts re-rendering at the Burn stage you should abort the process and check your file again. With all the "New Project - new file" steps the Work Flow seems rather fastidious, but if you want top quality it's worth doing.
However, at the end of his tutorial Jones adds the confusing note:
"For even higher output quality one could skip the creation of an AVI file and instead render directly from the (VSP) timeline to DVD-ready Mpeg2."
So not only would this considerably simplify the Work Flow, at the same time it improves quality! It is also the intuitive method that probably everyone who doesn't read the Work Flow tutorials uses.

[Black Lab]

No, everybody who doesn't read the suggested workflow or tutorials tries to RENDER AND BURN directly from the timeline. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Using the suggested workflow usually works.

To make it easy to understand, when you are finished your editing and are ready to burn you want to:
1. Create a DVD compatible MPEG-2 file by using the Share > Create Video File command.
2. With nothing in the timeline, go to Share > Create Disc and insert your DVD compatible MPEG-2 file.
3. Burn.

[Gisela Richter]

[quote="Black Lab"]No, everybody who doesn't read the suggested workflow or tutorials tries to RENDER AND BURN directly from the timeline. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Using the suggested workflow usually works.

Yes, I forgot that important point, but the logical conclusion from Trevor's final note is:
With nothing in the timeline you open the Burn window and import your edited DV-AVI file, and click Burn. The one and only rendering will now be done here.
"No," everyone says, "it is risky to convert and burn at the same time".
No problem! You DO NOT burn. You make a DVD folder or an ISO file for subsequent burning. Maybe you can even save the rendered Mpeg2 DVD-compliant file, but I'm not sure of that? In any case Ulead does not convert and burn "at the same time"; it converts first and then burns.
Well, I intend to experiment myself, using, with the same VSP file this one-step method and the recommended work flow (so keep tuned for the next exciting instalment!).

[skier-hughes]

"For even higher output quality one could skip the creation of an AVI file and instead render directly from the (VSP) timeline to DVD-ready Mpeg2."

This may or may not be the case and in the context you've quoted is very confusing.

I've quickly looked at jonesgroup.net, but cannot find his tutorial, so cannot read in which context he makes this statement.

If you had dv.avi files on your timeline and wanted to make a dvd, then saving these to dv.avi and then making your dvd would not make any difference to quality at all.

If you had any form of compressed file on the timeline, mpeg2/wmv, then adding another stage to the workflow would reduce the quality slightly, because you are adding a further comression decompression before making your mpeg2 files.

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi Gisela Richter
Now you have my attention

"Gisela Richterconclusion from Trevor's final note is:
With nothing in the timeline you open the Burn window and import your edited DV-AVI file, and click Burn. The one and only rendering will now be done here And---did i say that

Is this a typo error
Did you intend to say Mpeg File

One thing i have never done is to render in the burner module. I started editing on very old versions of VS that did not support burner render.
You had to create a video file first. This process just seems right to me.

[heinz-oz]

I'm glad Gisela doesn't seem to have any other problem than picking over different advice given to people by different people with a different set of experiences.

Please note:Any tutorial is written with the intend to make it easier for a novice to find his/her way around an unknown subject. It is not intended to infer to be the only way to success.

Having said that, I never read any of these tutorials and found my own work flow which works for me. I render a DVD compliant mpeg2 file from my DV-AVI time line after all my editing is done. I do not render any intermediate DV-AVI files but I do save my project frequently under alternating names. DV-AVI files take up tremendous disk space and I cannot see a tangible return for the waste in disk space by rendering intermediate DV-AVI files. Even though the compression rate is only small (yes, DV-AVI is a compressed format, lossles in the first generation), rendering to DV-AVI several times over will result in some quality loss.

My gerated mpeg2 file is then loaded into DVD MF for menu generation and burning. I also do not burn straight to DVD but to either DVD folders or ISO file on my HDD. These I burn to disk with Nero.

[Ken Berry]

Gisela --

The way to prevent this is to make a new file at every step, Steve calls them Movie A, Movie B, Movie C.

I trust you understand that Steve was here talking about a new Project file and not a video file, which is of course a different thing.

As to the tutorials, none of them is supposed to be an infallible Papal bull. They reflect each of the author's own experience and knowledge gained through their own experiments and mistakes. Just as all users are different in what they are seeking to do, so too is just about each computer different from any other, not only because of its differing hardware architecture, but also because the unique combination of software on it. In other words, the bottom line is that some workflows will work better for some people but not for others.

So yes, please, go ahead and experiment -- as I have suggested you do in at least one of your other recent posts. Work out which workflow produces the best results for you *consistently*. But don't be fooled into thinking because what you did one time was successful, that it will necessarily always be successful. Some people always jump straight from the editing stage to the burning stage without first making a separate DVD-compliant mpeg-2, and it always works for them. Some other users find that this works most of the time, but not always, and some other users again find it never works. The trick is to find a method which always works for *you* and stick to it. Or at least be aware of work-arounds if you adopt another workflow and run into problems.

I feel I should also correct another misconception you seem to have. You said:

"No," everyone says, "it is risky to convert and burn at the same time". No problem! You DO NOT burn. You make a DVD folder or an ISO file for subsequent burning.

There is in effect NO difference whether you actually burn a disc or whether you prepare an ISO image file or Video_TS folder. It is still regarded as the product of the burning engine and the burning process. Yes, the two latter require a further step to actually transfer them to a DVD. But from the point of view of the burning module, all three are in effect identical - a DVD.

Yes, as you say, the steps in the burning module are sequential. But when you open the burning module, while it is part of the Video Studio package, it is in reality an independent sub-unit, rather along the lines of a modified separate program like Movie Factory. It behaves according to its own rules. You insert your video in one form or another; you build your menus; then you preview them; then you select what your end product is going to be and press Burn. The burning module will then convert your menus to video. It will then convert your video to DVD-compatibility if it is not already in a compatible format (or if it has separate properties to the default ones if you untick the 'Do not convert compliant mpeg files' box). It will then multiplex the video and audio; then it will prepar the files necessary for a DVD (.ifo, .bup and .vob) and then assemble them either as an ISO, Video_TS or actual DVD.

Each of these steps is demanding in its own right. If the conversion of the video to DVD compatibility has to take place during it, then the burning module in effect has to wake up the main VS program, which is taking a rest at this stage, and keep in communication with it while the conversion takes place within the main Video Studio program. Now for some users at least, their computers just cannot meet the extra demand this places on the resources available, and the program hangs.

Relieving the burning module of this extra burden by first producing the DVD-compatible video file before you even open the burning module, is in this context a sensible redistribution (or at least recognition) of your computer resources. It will also allow you to check the video for errors or other editing changes before you commit it to a disc.

[sjj1805]

Sorry if you find it confusing I even created a flow chart to try and make it easier to follow:

Click this thumbnail to see the flowchart describing this suggested work flow:


You appear to have misread one or two items from your responses above.
You do not create a DV(avi) file and then import that to the burning module.
If you did then you will be rendering twice.
First time to the DV(avi) file and then because DVD's are made from MPEG files, that will be rendered again to MPEG. Therefore you render an MPEG file not a DV file.

Yes you can simply place the project file in the authoring stage.
However... you have not checked the file to see if it fulfills your satisfaction. If you then decide to make further adjustments to your editing decisions then you might end up having to redo all of your work in the authoring stage.

Let us suppose that after completing your editing decisions it takes 1 hour to create a MPEG file. This is then imported into the authoring stage and will not be rendered again. Creation of the DVD Menus will be fairly quick.

If on the other hand you pass the project file to the authoring stage, the project file must be rendered to MPEG - this will take that same hour and then it will go on to complete the remainder of its task - creating the DVD menus.

So basically you can do it either way - mostly personal choice - the completed DVD should have the same quality.

Does this now make sense to you?

[Gisela Richter]

I'm glad Gisela doesn't seem to have any other problem than picking over different advice given to people by different people with a different set of experiences.

I'm surprised to find such an offensive comment in this forum. I'm obviously getting on your nerves, Heinz, but as a self-made man who doesn't need to read tutorials you certainly don't have to read my meanderings.
I don't "pick over" peoples' advice, I simply compare, trying to reach decisions for myself. I always find discussion rewarding - in every field of life, but I'm sorry if it annoys you

[Gisela Richter]

Yes you can simply place the project file in the authoring stage.
However... you have not checked the file to see if it fulfills your satisfaction. If you then decide to make further adjustments to your editing decisions then you might end up having to redo all of your work in the authoring stage.

Does this now make sense to you?

Yes Steve, eminently clear, but the above statement does contradict the general view that you should not convert at the burn stage. In fact it confirms my "one-step" method, except that you immediately add "however you have not checked the file..."
How come? You check your VSP file (if we can call this a file) lots of times while you're making it, and when you've finished editing and everything is ready, you can check the whole thing as many times as you like. I generally check it so often I get sick of it before I even get to the next stage, which, normally, is making a file. Jeff next makes a DVD file (i.e. a Mpeg2 DVD-compliant file ). Trevor makes a DV-AVI file first. Jones says you don't really have to make a file at all - which you confirm in the above quote. This is what I have called the "one-step" method. If it works it looks like the easiest and best method.
I tried it last night. A simple 3 minute clip, no sound track, no menu. The image quality was remarkably crisp. But all the movements were jerky. Why? Perhaps because I made a DVD folder plus an ISO file at the same time. Too much all at the same time perhaps? I'll try it again.
With the same clip first rendered to a DVD file for comparison, Ulead nevertheless started re-rendering before burning. I stopped it and checked my settings, but they were correct, so I burned with Nero, who also insisted on a (very quick) re-rendering - he always does. The result was good but the image did seem a tiny bit less crisp. So I'll continue my experiments, and in case anyone is interested I'll post a report in a few days - Heinz, be warned!

[Trevor Andrew]

. Trevor makes a DV-AVI file first. !

No I don't--not with normal Dv-Avi capture and certainly not from Mpeg

Unless I want to export back to camcorder.

If I am making a slide show from still images, I may opt for Dv-Avi render then render to Mpeg,
I have found that creates a better quality video, but thats not what you are discussing

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi Gisela Richter

and a bit more

You seem to be having problems / conflicts with establishing a work flow for yourself
I hope you have success

But are you having quality problems with creating a dvd?

If you are not experiencing quality problems, then what¡¦s the point in all these postings.

My web site is intended as a quick guide, the settings that I use, work for me.

Rendering in the burner module

Ulead produced a product that would burn a disc from the project, from a VSP file.
In fact you could use any file and render in the burner module.
Whether this process was successful was another matter. Many, many users had problems.
Improvements to the software made this option practical, or so we thought.
Ulead admitted via there Knowledge Data Base--that if you had problems the solution was to render first to Mpeg 2.

I have always used this option, it just makes sense to me.

To burn a dvd you need a Mpeg 2 file.

This can be created by yourself, prior to burning. (share create video file)
Or
Created by VS, to a temp folder ( rendered in the burner module)

I know which I prefer.

Once I have created my Mpeg 2 file I start a new project.
I set the project properties to match the video properties. (this is just my way of working, but there is a reason)
Now I go Share Create Disc¡XAdd Video.
No further renders to the main video files, other than VS 10/11 creating menus.

[heinz-oz]

I'm glad Gisela doesn't seem to have any other problem than picking over different advice given to people by different people with a different set of experiences.

I'm surprised to find such an offensive comment in this forum. I'm obviously getting on your nerves, Heinz, but as a self-made man who doesn't need to read tutorials you certainly don't have to read my meanderings.
I don't "pick over" peoples' advice, I simply compare, trying to reach decisions for myself. I always find discussion rewarding - in every field of life, but I'm sorry if it annoys you

Sorry if I came across as offensive, that wasn't my intention at all. You don't annoy me either. I just wanted to make the point that I didn't see where you had a particular problem, leading up to where I state that a tutorial is not representing the one and only way but a way that worked for someone.

Peace

[heinz-oz]

... So I'll continue my experiments, and in case anyone is interested I'll post a report in a few days - Heinz, be warned!

Please do so, this is a free world Why not write a tutorial about your way too? The next Gisela that comes along would have more material to compare in an attempt to find her own way.

Any advice given, as long as it is sound advice, can only benefit others who face problems. I think that is the purpose of this board, not trying to find out who is more right in someones personal view.

BTW, I would consider myself warned if I was scared, which I'm not. Do you have a personal score to settle with me in particular? Please, bring it on.

[sjj1805]

........
I tried it last night. A simple 3 minute clip, no sound track, no menu. The image quality was remarkably crisp. But all the movements were jerky. Why? ......

That is one of the many reasons why this forum has developed a suggested workflow. The procedure outlined although in my name Suggested work flow by SJJ1805 for Video Creation was not simply something I threw together all by myself but was a result of
1. Reading hundreds of posts on this forum regarding the optimum workflow considered by our members.
2. Discussion with fellow senior forum members before releasing the workflow to the forum.

I gave this workflow my name so that it would show that the suggested workflow is NOT the work of the software company. A previous similar post gave that wrong impression and in fact that other post began to wrongly suggest bugs in the program or that by failing to follow THAT method then you would be doomed to failure!

"My" workflow makes no such claims and in fact I clearly state

Failing to follow this or any other suggested work flow will not mean that a bolt of lightening will come shooting out of the sky and fry you and your computer. Experiment and find a work flow that works for you. This work flow works for me and follows a logical set of steps and provides me with a good result. It does not imply that you cannot do things in a different manner.

I have also looked at the workflow by Trevor - which incidentaly is the same as the one I have published - we just word the same things differently. So if you don't understand my phrasology read Trevors and Vice Versa - they are both the same!

The workflow of Jerry Jones is almost the same. I don't know why but Jerry seems to like to create an intermediate DV(avi) file from the editing stage and then convert that DV(avi) file to MPEG2.

Let us think about that for a moment.
Let us suppose that after completion of your editing decisions it then takes a hour to render a DV(avi) file.
let us suppose it then takes a further hour to convert that DV(avi) file to MPEG2. Total time = 2 hours plus you have rendered twice.

Instead of that render your file directly to MPEG2 - total time 1 hour.
Saving = 1 hour. End result & quality are identical.

Having said that you must also remain flexible in your adopted workflow.
Perhaps you want to return the edited DV(avi) file back to your camcorder for long term storage on tape. If you do then perhaps the Jerry Jones method might be better. What I would look for here is the total rendering time. The question to be asked is this
"Is it faster to render an MPEG2 file from the new DV file because the program does not have to spend time working out things like transitions and titles etc. Or is it quicker to render from the original project file, or is there no difference in time between the two options?"

Perhaps in your trials you may wish to test that for us and let us know your results.