superior mpeg encoding with stand alone DVD recorders?

[dhmark]

I am interested in any others' experience in comparing DVD quality using different methods. In my few tests, I think I have found that using a stand-alone DVD recorder (my model Toshiba xs-232) in the step to encode AVI to DVD (mpeg2) produces a superior quality edited DVD than using VS11+. This could be done at various steps in the process. You could capture using the DVD recorder, then import the mpeg from the DVD into VS, edit, create a video file, and then burn the movie. Or you could capture into VS as AVI, edit, record back into the camera, then record your movie onto the DVD recorder. Both ways the conversion from AVI to mpeg 2 is being done by the DVD recorder. I've done this with identical bit-rates, matching field order, etc, comparing this to having VS encode the AVI to mpeg 2.

dhmark

[DVDDoug]

That's rather surprising!

I wouldn't generally recommend that procedure, but everybody has to find a procedure that works best with their particular set-up.

In theory, the computer should be able to do a better job, for a couple of reasons -

- The computer can use variable-bitrate two-pass encoding. (It's my understanding that commercial DVDs are encoded with multi-pass encoding.) The stand-alone recorder has to do it once in real-time, with no chance to pre-analyze the video.

- The stand alone-recorder requires an extra digital-to-analog conversion and an extra analog-to-digital conversion. The computer does it 100% digitally.

You could capture using the DVD recorder, then import the mpeg from the DVD into VS, edit, create a video file, and then burn the movie.

You should avoid editing MPEGs if possible. MPEG encoding should be the last step (whenever possible). Most "real editing" (other than simple cutting & splicing) requires the MPEG to be de-coded and re-coded. This means an extra lossy-compression step, and the re-coding will be done with Video Studio's (apparently lower-quality) encoder. (If you use Smart Render, the video will only be re-coded where required.)

In addition to the "theoretical" editing issues, some of us have experienced other "weird" problems when editing MPEGs... Like the "lip sync" problems that inspired my signature/tag-line below!

[dhmark]

yes, it is somewhat surprising to me, for the same reasons you mention. However, this DVD recorder has firewire input ( so possibly no analog-digital conversion), but it does convert in real-time, variable bit-rate up to 9200. The movies did not involve much beyond splicing, simple transitions, so during editing almost no re-encoding was involved.

The big noticeable difference is when a big moving colored object is in the screen (ie person walking in a bright colored Parka). The coat will appear with big square blocks of color when encoded with the computer, the DVD recorder produces clean image.

I was tempted to try this as before I used VS, I made simple home DVD's using the DVD recorder, and I always thought the quality was superb. When starting to use VS and other reencoding software (Roxio), noticed much more of this big pixel effect. This is even using 2-pass option, high quality settings, highest bit rate.

dhmark

[skier-hughes]

To copare properly you'd need to have exact same bitrates set with each encoding.

I'd never use a dvd recorder for making anything important. Search my previous posts on dvd recorders for more info.

I have one, which I use for personal use, but now with my hhd/dvd recorder I record very few dvds, mainly recording direct to hdd.

All my professional work is done on a pc using software such as procoder for encoding.