sorry to say but Quality is poor on 9 compared to 8

beebbuoy · Post by **beebbuoy** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:29 pm

i bought 9 today and having been a customer since number 6 but never come on this forum, i thought i'd say hello to everyone.

I have rendered loads of video's over the past few years. Nine i'm afraid is terrible...there are massive squares all over the video. Today whilst rendering i have had to return to version 8.

has anyone else experienced this? by the way i have used a Ulead 8 project and set the same settings for 9, but it's the same. this is rendering the same video...the results between the two are incredible, 8 is way way ahead, how can this be and have i wasted my money?

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:53 pm

It might help to mention exactly what you are doing -- what format you are outputting to, and how you are viewing the final results. You're the first one to report that UVS 9 produces much worse video than earlier version...

beebbuoy · Post by **beebbuoy** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:56 pm

okay here goes....video in

Mpeg 2 480 x 576...avi file date rate 2376

video out

mpeg 1 352 x 288 mpeg1 data rate 1200

on Ulead 8 perfect, on ulead 9 awful..if anyone wants to see the difference i am on msn beebbuoy@hotmail.com

Bryan

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:51 pm

So you are letting the conversion complete, and then you view the output using Windows Media Player, or what?

If you are judging the quality using the Preview window in UVS (either during the editing or as a result of the "Play video when finished" option), the video needs to be resized again to fit the dimensions of the Preview window.

jchunter · Post by **jchunter** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:52 pm

Bryan,
Those capture properties are bizarre. I doubt if VS8 or 9 could handle properties like that. What do you mean by Video In vs. Video Out?

What is the capture source? Analog/Digital, capture device (if analog)?
If you are capturing to mpeg, how fast is your computer?
Etc. etc.

We need a lot of information to help you.
John

beebbuoy · Post by **beebbuoy** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:18 pm

i think i have solved this, firstly thank you for your input in trying to help me.

I have found that my project settings from UL8 changed when i imported the project into UL9..... have solved this and the video's look far far better. Going to do some more testing but i think i have solved it.

also i have ordered my CD of Ulead 9, but have taken advantage of the instant download...there are not many sample with this are there? where can i get these from? or do i have to wait for my CD.

Thanks

bryan

Post by **Ken Berry** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:41 pm

Even though you appear to have solved your problem, I am -- like John Hunter -- still extremely curious to know exactly how you came by those "bizarre" video properties. Can you please satisfy our collective curiosity???

thecoalman · Post by **thecoalman** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:03 pm

Ken Berry wrote:Even though you appear to have solved your problem, I am -- like John Hunter -- still extremely curious to know exactly how you came by those "bizarre" video properties. Can you please satisfy our collective curiosity???

"Bizarre" in the NTSC and non digital world.

A lot of digital braodcasts are broadcast at odd resolutions ( http://www.digitalfaq.com/understandsource.htm ) which would be the first one, the second one is a standard PAL VCD size.

beebbuoy · Post by **beebbuoy** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:44 am

thecoalman wrote:
Ken Berry wrote:Even though you appear to have solved your problem, I am -- like John Hunter -- still extremely curious to know exactly how you came by those "bizarre" video properties. Can you please satisfy our collective curiosity???
"Bizarre" in the NTSC and non digital world. A lot of digital braodcasts are broadcast at odd resolutions ( http://www.digitalfaq.com/understandsource.htm ) which would be the first one, the second one is a standard PAL VCD size.

spot on coalman... the results are quite different. maybe the full properties of a project doesn't get saved when you use a project from UL8 in UL9... i noticed the compression had change to Mpeg 2 when i wanted it to be Mpeg 1. i use my Video's to DJ...and although i use Mpeg 1 pal format 352 x 288 i use a frame rate of 30, this makes the video seem softer.

GeorgeW · Post by **GeorgeW** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:48 am

out of personal preference, I've noticed when forced to use low resolutions and low bitrates, that mpeg1 looks better than mpeg2.

ymmv

MikeGunter · Post by **MikeGunter** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:35 pm

Hi all,

Quality will vary on screen from the CODEC (COmpression/DECompression) scheme used.

DV sources are very good and the *norm*.

VS9 can use any CODEC in the system. I edit content in other sources at different resolutions all the time.

It is, in general, best to use the CODEC that compresses least when working on the timeline. MPEG1 and MPEG2 are both very compressed, and not ideal choices for creating content.

That being said, I've captured to MPEG1 for some web projects.

Mike

Alludo USER to USER Web Board

sorry to say but Quality is poor on 9 compared to 8

sorry to say but Quality is poor on 9 compared to 8

At low resolution/bitrates