VideoStudio 10 audio problem

[Weeination]

I forgot to mention that I also didn't hear any popping or cracking in the audio with all videofiles rendered in VS 11 Plus, unlike with VS 10 when I didn't use Smart Render.

[Weeination]

Another thing about that rendered videofile. The file size has shrunk to 2.66 GB which has to be from the smaller bit rate.

Has anyone else seen this on VS 11 Plus in the past?

[Weeination]

I changed the project settings to a bit rate matching the original 9558 and indicated I want a videofile rendered to match the project settings. VS 11 Plus then wants to create a videofile which is larger than what can fit on a DVD-R.

[Weeination]

Even if I can get VS 11 Plus to work for me they way I have wanted VS 9 and VS 10 to do after all of these years, how much better is Pro X8? How much better is the technology for rendering videofiles using MPEG files? Is there overall much less of an issue with out of sync audio and video when doing basic editing with MPEG files with the advanced technology? From the testing Lata has done, there appears to be at least some if not great improvement in the rendering process. Even with VS 11 Plus using Smart Render I am still getting an OOS issue so if I stick with my older computer and get the full version of VS 11 then I can't use Smart Render. Using Smart Render on X7 and X8, that virtually eliminates the problem according to Lata. In addition to longer rendering times not using Smart Render (especially on my older computer), isn't there at least in theory a slightly greater degradation in videofile picture quality compare to the original files simply because the entire project needs to be rendered?

I need to buy another computer for Pro X8 so I want to know if there is a fairly significant difference in rendering quality to make the entire upgrade (computer and software) worthwhile.

[Weeination]

I guess the other factor in obtaining superior results is not just the software but the performance of the computer itself. For any long time users of VideoStudio that over the years have used it's different versions and needed to buy newer computers to meet the recommended system requirements, do you feel the investment was worthwhile with the benefits justifying the expense?

[Weeination]

Before I gave up on VS 11 Plus, I compared the smaller videofile it rendered (2.66 GB) to the original files showing a smaller bit rate when imported in VS 11 Plus. It was no surprise there was clearly some degradation of the video quality. This is the first time I have seen any degradation to that extent with any version of VideoStudio. Of course as I mentioned earlier, I could probably bring the quality of a videofile to be much closer or virtually identical to the original files but that would mean changing the bit rate and making the videofile a lot larger.

I then was ready to give up until I became aware of one final version of VideoStudio which my computer meets the system requirements. I thought the next version was X3 but there was actually another version before that. From the trial version I located, it appears to be named both VideoStudio 12 and X2.

Anyhow upon rendering a videofile with it using Smart Render, the video and audio were barely out of sync. It was really a little hard to detect but slightly more noticeable when playing both simultaneously. Again there was no popping or cracking in the audio and the file size was just as it should be. That was the best result I have ever seen with VideoStudio using Smart Render with my computer. The videofile would have been perfect if it were not for that extremely slight OOS issue.

Finally, I rendered a videofile without Smart Render with VS 12/X2. The audio and video were now perfectly in sync with no popping or cracking. The file size was considerably larger however as there was only 20MB of allowable room remaining for burning onto a DVD-R if I wanted to include a menu which I do. The problem is that will I would want to add at least two or three more minutes of additional content onto that same disc which would take me over the maximum amount of room. Therefore I would have to compress what is there. I would hate to do that as it appears upon close comparison that there was already a very tiny bit of degradation in the videofile compared it to the original files. I am guessing in part because Smart Render was not used and so everything was re-coded.

Well that is it for video editing with my older computer. I have since bought that newer computer and hope to see all these issues finally resolved.

[Ken Berry]

For burning a DVD, we normally recommend using a bitrate maximum of 8000 kbps. This will allow 4.3 GB of video to be burned to a one hour DVD in very good quality. Your original video rate of over 9600 kbps is very high and very near the upper limit of video + audio of 10,000 kbps permissible for a DVD. We recommend the 8000 kbps rate since quite a few stand-alone DVD players have difficulty with home made DVDs using higher bitrates.

FWIW, version 12 was the first in the series in which Corel started using the Roman X for 10 in front of a number. So it is, correctly speaking, version X2...

[Weeination]

Hi Ken.

I actually decided to conduct two more final tests on my older computer. The first was with VS 11 Plus with the files that were imported with VS 10 and the project created on VS 10 with a 9558 bit rate. The first videofile rendered was 3.9 GB (an acceptable file size for me) with no out of sync issue. The only problem with that result was a bit of picture quality degradation. Therefore for my last test I created a videofile on X2 using Smart Render. As expected the video and audio were a little out of sync. The only reason why I made this last test was to closely compare the picture quality of the videofile to the original files. This was purely a test of VideoStudio’s rendering capability to prevent video quality degradation. I never compared a rendered videofile to the original files this closely before. To my surprise, even using Smart Render there is still a tiny bit of loss in video quality. The loss however appears to be less compared to the aforementioned videofile made without Smart Render.

Therefore I have this question before I begin using this new computer. With one of the latest versions (X7 or X8) of VideoStudio in use with a far more powerful PC, will that prevent any loss whatsoever in picture quality comparing original files to a videofile rendered using Smart Render? If there is still a slight loss with the PC and software updates, then I wonder if I should just stick with the computer I have for now and get the full version for VS 11 Plus while importing files with VS 10.

[Ken Berry]

It's a little difficult to answer your question with specific degrees of loss of quality. But essentially the problem is that mpeg-2 -- the video format required to create a DVD -- is what is called a "lossy" format. Each render will produce some loss in quality, though how far this loss will be visible to the human eye will vary both with the viewer and the nature of what is in the video. In addition, any change in the bitrate used will also affect quality -- a lower bitrate will always mean lower quality. Moreover, these comments apply regardless of the software, or version of the software, used. I also have to add that I don't think there has been much change in the basic burning engine used by VS since the versions you are playing around with, apart of course from the extra bells and whistles added to more recent programs in order to be able to burn high definition video in the form of Blu-Ray and AVCHD discs etc. Mind you, these days with the latest versions we get far fewer people having out of sync errors than we used to with the older versions, so something might have changed in that regard.

[lata]

Hi

I have been absent for a few days finding myself without internet connection.
Trying to catch up with proceedings I have read through the posts.
I don’t have VS11 although VS 12 is probably the first good version after Corel took over Ulead, and the first to use X as an identity, (CVSX2)

Just to recap, I did render using X7 and X8 both produced files of the same size and both apparently in sync, as good as I could get but not perfect, whether we can see the OOS when viewing the video is debatable. Certainly the wav data was not perfect. This seemed to vary depending on the video content, eg the different clips used caused variations in the sync’……..dont get me wrong I am only talking a few frames 1 , 2 maybe 3, but nothing is consistent, sometimes leading and others lagging. (being very critical here)

I would think the final video would be good enough to watch.

I am still concerned that the original footage may be causing some sync issues, especially as they may well be copy protected, converting the originals from HD 16:9 to SD 4:3 is not gonna do any favours to the quality, I am sure there must be a reason to convert but surly retaining the widescreen would have been the best option? After all the conversion the video displays as Widescreen, a 4:3 with black borders. Seems wrong to me?

I have a 3 Gb + rendered file from X7 that I can upload, will take a while, that’s if it completes ok.

Your PC….

I assume you have a new computer, you may be best to install X7 to run your own render tests, that will be faster that uploading / downloading the 3GB file

[Weeination]

Well I have the new computer running. I then went ahead and purchased the download for X8 because I was told if I am not satisfied with the program I can get a refund within 30 days after the purchase date.

The rendered videofile on X8 using Smart Render looks perfect. Mind you it isn't actually perfect when comparing the videofile to the project by playing them simultaneously. The videofile appears to be off by perhaps two frames. I am not sure. It is so close that when playing the videofile on its own I can't really notice any OOS. From what you described Lata, this result is likely similar to what you have seen from your tests.

I then compared the videofile rendered with X2 (on the older computer) to X8. As I said before, with the X2 videofile it was very hard to detect any OOS. It was very near perfect. On that older computer it was the best result I ever had with any version of VideoStudio. Well I can see/hear an even further improvement with the videofile rendered on X8 using this newer computer and I am satisfied with the result.

After all of these years, it is so good to finally see the results I have always been hoping for with VideoStudio.

Rendering times are so much faster by the way.

I am still concerned that the original footage may be causing some sync issues, especially as they may well be copy protected, converting the originals from HD 16:9 to SD 4:3 is not gonna do any favors to the quality, I am sure there must be a reason to convert but surly retaining the widescreen would have been the best option? After all the conversion the video displays as Widescreen, a 4:3 with black borders. Seems wrong to me?

That is the way my Panasonic records. I tried changing the aspect ratio settings before but that didn't seem to make any difference. For me it doesn't matter anyway. When I watch anything in SD not using an HDMI cable on my Samsung television, there is a picture setting (Zoom 1) which fills the screen nearly perfectly for such a recording. One or perhaps two very tiny pixels are cut off at the top and bottom of the screen and nothing on the sides. The picture is also not stretched.

Thanks to both Lata and Ken for their assistance on this matter by the way.

[canuck]

Why are you changing the aspect ratio from 16:9 to 4:3 if you are watching on a HD TV?

[Weeination]

When I edited the clips together in X8 I used the exact same times for the project I edited together in VS 10. On the smaller secondary clips when there is a hard camera angle change, in VS 10 for many of the angle changes there is one frame which transitions between the camera angle change. That one extra frame consisted of images from both angles, like both were ghosting over one another. On X8 that frame on those smaller secondary clips isn't there. The hard camera angle changes are now the same as in the primary larger clip. Therefore I had to re-edit the project to take this into account and remove a few instances of duplicate frames. On one of these duplicate frames on the videofile, I noticed the picture jump on that exact frame. When I removed it and rendered another videofile that jump was no longer there.

There were two parts on the videofile using times from the original project times which resulted in two or three frames of brief pixilation when going to a part which used a different clip. On both times this occurred as the screen was black with no audio. When I removed one black screen frame in both instances, the pixilation went away on the next rendered videofile.

When playing the videofile simultaneously with the project, the very slight variation in the audio can differ depending on which clip I am playing. I also seemed to notice a difference on clips whether the videofile was rendered using "Same as Project Settings" or "Same as First Video Clip". In fact while my test yesterday only involved looking at the end of then videofile, I decided to check other parts today. On one part of the videofile using a secondary clip I seemed to notice a very small bit of OOS. That videofile was rendered using Same as Project Settings. On a second videofile rendered with Same as First Video Clip that seemed to remove any tiny bit of OSS that appears on the other videofile.

Even when playing each videofile simultaneously with the original project, it appears that there is a difference in the audio between each videofile on different clips. From what I see, the difference appears to be greater on parts of the videofile involving the smaller secondary clipss when the videofile was rendered with Same as Project Settings.

Aside from one part of the videofile I mentioned above that was rendered using Same as Project Settings and even with the timeline comparison with the project and videofiles, the audio and video still looks in sync on playback after checking different parts. I am guessing therefore that the best option of the two when rendering a videofile from a project edited the way that this one was is to use Same as First Video Clip to obtain slightly better results.

Why are you changing the aspect ratio from 16:9 to 4:3 if you are watching on a HD TV?

I have no choice when recording with my Panasonic DVD recorder off of the DVR. I have to downgrade from from HD to SD and all of my recordings with the Panasonic are that way. Besides, as I said before I can still watch those Panasonic recordings essentially in 16:9 anyhow. Even if VideoStudio allows me to change the aspect ratio, I might as well leave this recording the same as all of the others recorded on the Panasonic but did not really require any editing of the sort that this one did.

[Weeination]

I played a DVD burned from the very same edit mentioned above on a LG Blu-ray player. At the parts where I made the edits during hard camera angle changes (inserting video from another recording due to signal issues) the DVD plays with stuttered motion for a very brief moment at those exact places. This does not happen on my Panasonic DVD recorder or on another brand of DVD Player I tried (RCA).

Is this common for DVDs made with VideoStudio to playback that way on certain or all Blu-ray players with the type of editing I have done?

I checked one of my older DVDs made with VideoStudio 10 which plays without the effect I mentioned on my Panasonic recorders. The same thing happens however with that disc on that same LG Blu-ray player.

[skier-hughes]

Sounds like a compatibility issue with the bluray player and the discs. This can often happen. If the disc works with other players, we know it is ok.
You could try, a different brand of disc, different burning attributes, using a different burner, using a different authoring programme, or just knowing that it isn't going to work on that player and leave it at that.