Alludo USER to USER Web Board

As a newbie, I'll apologize if this is already on the forum. I did not find any specific suggestions. Other than "trial and error", what is the suggested rendering of hi-def files to standard dvd ? The files are NTSCHDMV, H.264, 24b, 1920 X 1080, 29.97 f/s, 16000kbps. I have used the best SD DVD output (720 X 480, 29.97 f/s, 8000 kbps) and the resulting video shows jagged edges on lined objects (similar to the calibration sheet of a printer setup). The AVCHD dvd looks great but I need to "downgrade" it for those less fortunate w/o blu-ray capabilities. I was hoping that someone could suggest best format as oppossed to just trying different settings.
Thanks in advance, Mike N

Looks like your field order is wrong. This will lead to typical jagged edges. Which field order did you choose when creating your DVD? Did you keep the field order of your original footage?

After posting I noticed post about field orders under my original. The mts video is UFF. Looking at VS properties I did notice it was set to LFF and thought, that's it ! I output 3 clips w/ UFF and video actually looks worse
(at least not any better).

Hi Mike

I would Create a template using Tools Make Movie Manager

Use the Add function and create the template using the HD file.
Now edit the template changing the ¡¥Compression¡¦ ¡¥Media Type¡¦ to NTSC DVD

The Bit Rate and Frame Size will change to match NTCSDVD standards
All other properties should stay the same.

Use to convert the HD file.

Thanks, Trevor, I'll try that tomorrow sometime. Presently what I did was use the "frame based" mode instead of UFF or LFF and that okay. But I'll try that suggestion soon.

Have to say this has been a great forum that I've read for a awhile.
(VS user since VS . Can't believe I've waited so long to join & post.

Was frame based ok? On what type of screen are you watching your DVD?

Yes, frame based seemed to be the best choice. You bring up a good point of TV. I have a Samsung DLP, 1080p. I can only reduce size to 4:3 when trying to compare what it would look like on an older CRT model. I'm not exactly sure about the frame based mode. I did read the post about UFF & LFF and the interlacing. I also have perused you link & site. THanks for all of the helpful info. I noticed my last post had an emoticon where it should have been version 8 of Video Studio.

AFAIK frame based should only be used on a pc screen. TV screens need interlacing. But I understand you tried all these options (fame-based, UFF and LFF)? The way you described your problem seemed like a typical field order problem to me.

BTW is your screen connected to your pc? In other words do you use it as a pc-screen? If so it could behave as a computer screen which would explain why frame-based works best for you.

I did a quick search on google with "Samsung DLP interlacing" and found a Samsung owner who reported:

One thing I've noticed is that the new ATI de-interlacer as opposed to the other brand in my previous LCD is not as capable. I can see interlace artifacts where I previoiously did not (on interlaced feeds, analog tv or 1080i). Keeping in mind it's very mild - and you'd have to be a nut job like me to notice it. Of course this can perhaps also be eliminated wit the service menu. Not played with the de-interlacer chip yet.

http://www.dtvforum.info/lofiversion/in ... 19999.html

VS is capable of delivering a good image so I think it has something to do with the image building of your TV.

randazzo -- just a comment. High definition 1080p screens can in fact see and play frame based video with no problem. the 'p' of course stands for 'progressive' and in some ways high definition is high definition because of the number of lines involved and the fact they are all broadcast together. In fact, such HDTVs have a built in mechanism which allows them to play interlaced video correctly, but their native 'progressive' format is very similar to frame based...

Ken, thank you for responding. I've never had an issue before getting the best video quality from VS. My dilemma is this: I've got an HF100 hd camcorder now, which only records in hd. I will be burning an AVCHD dvd for myself but when sharing with family I will have to convert to SD video. The only TV I have is the Samsung so I can't really check what it looks like on a CRT screen. The frame bsaed looks the best on my TV but should that be what I render DVD for others ?
Mike N

Unless they have progressive scan HDTVs, no. You would need to downconvert to SD mpeg-2 with high quality settings (i.e. bitrate of 8000 kbps) and use Upper Field First.

Sorry I cannot be more detailed but I am away from home at the moment, and about to go into a conference!!

mgnielub wrote:NTSCHDMV, H.264, 24b, 1920 X 1080, 29.97 f/s, 16000kbps. Thanks in advance, Mike N

I assume by 24b, you mean 24p, which is why your video will look best in frame ased as you've recorded a progressive file in the first place.

I recently read somehting about this downconversion on the cow recently, so I searched out the link. OK, not related to working in VS, but it should give you an idea of where you need to go to do it properly.
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/937262

The HF100 can shoot in three modes - 60i, 24p and 30p.

Both of the progressive modes (i.e. 24p and 30p) offer benefits in low light situations, but it may be that the regular 60i mode will be best suited to making SD dvd's for distribution to your non-progressive friends.

Some experimentation may be in order.

Thanks 2Dogs,

I had tried experimenting in all three modes as far as camera goes. I did not own VS12 at the time so did not get to play with conversions. I taped my niece's wedding. I taped some in 24p & some in "easy"mode -60i. Does the 24 bits in the properties mean it was 24p ? Or does that show in the properties ? Either way, I figured down converting would still produce a better than normal SD video, but am still trying different angles. I have done short clips in UFF, LFF & frames based and FB still looks the best
(with only moderate waves in horizontal lines). I guess I could play video & capture but that defeats the whole purpose of why I went to flash based memory ! Any more advice; I'm still struggling.
Mike N