Which video format is best?

secookie · Post by **secookie** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:36 pm

Hi

I'm just creating our Cub Scout DVD and am capturing our videos from our Canon Camcorder.

At the moment, I'm using a DV Cable but find that using the DV Format on Videstudio creates huge file sizes.

I note that there are other formats available (mpeg, avi etc) but I don't know the differenec between them.

Is there a video format which I can create directly from the camcorder to videostudio which will give me a good quality video but with a smaller video size?

An example of the "huge" video size - the one clip is 2 minutes long and is 422mb !!!

Many thanks in advance for everyone's help.

Simon Cook
Cub Scout Leader
Monkmoor Cubs, Shrewsbury, UK

DiscCoasterPro · Post by **DiscCoasterPro** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:07 pm

Hi. It's ususally suggested to capture in the AVI format because it makes for better editing. Then when the finished product is about to be burned to DVD it gets encoded into the mpeg format making the final product much smaller. I'm sure there are folks who could explain this much better though

BrianCee · Post by **BrianCee** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:23 pm

The size of your video file is directly related to the quality of your video , best quality (DV = .avi) equals big file sizes - other formats = smaller file sizes = poor quality video. It's up to you - best quality big file or poorer quality smaller file size.

One hour of best quality .avi video will produce a file between 13 & 14 Gb (yes Gigabytes)

secookie · Post by **secookie** » Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:05 pm

Thanks for the help.

I''m also have problems with videostudio freezing up when I come to create a video from Share > Create Video. I do it into PAL DVD.

After a while (seems to vary from attempt to attempt) the PC locks out completly and I have to turn it off and back on again.

I've found if I make my project about 4 mins or so it seems to work but much longer and I get the lock up.

My PC is:-

AMD Athalon XP 3200+ 2,19Ghz
1.00 GB RAM
150 GB Hard Disk with about 100 GB free

Not sure where the problem lies, whether it's software or hardware. My thoughts are lack of memory / virtual memory but I don't know.

I've looked at the sticky post and I seem to be doing everything it says. I've every tried closing everything that's in memory to no avail.

The drivers all seem to be up-to-date and there are no devices which aren't workiing right.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Simon Cook

Trevor Andrew · Post by **Trevor Andrew** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:00 am

Hi

What version of Video Studio are you using?

You captured to Dv-Avi by selecting Dv as the Format.(13Gb/hour)
You edit your video.
You Share Create Video file (select Pal-Dvd)
On my pc this process takes 2.5 times the run time.

Have you applied the System Tweaks recommended by Ulead?

You are following the top posting re recommended procedure

Trevor

heinz-oz · Post by **heinz-oz** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:05 am

Where does your swap file live and, is the folder holding your temp files restricted in size? When did you defrag your system last?

DiscCoasterPro · Post by **DiscCoasterPro** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:27 am

Heinz, is there a winxp setting that restricts temp file size? I would like to check this on my computer also if there is, or are you refering to a full HD.

Also, in the VS9 manual, relative to the swapfile, it recommends having a set size. Does WS also like this setting or is some other setting better?

thanks,

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:38 am

Have a look at my post at the following location regarding AVI -v- MPEG
http://phpbb.ulead.com.tw/EN/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Its in the Movie Factory Forum but the same applies to Video Studio.

DiscCoasterPro · Post by **DiscCoasterPro** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:50 am

Hi sjj1805. I'm trying to learn about video editing and in doing so, I'm trying to read as much as I can. In reading your link above I was confused by something and would like to ask you about it. You mentioned .....

When deciding whether to capture to MPEG or AVI you have to decide in advance what your intentions are. It does take even the most powerful computers some considerable time to convert from AVI to MPEG.

I have a digital camcorder (panasonic gs200) that, as I understand it records in DV-AVI. In your above statement I do understand the time needed to convert, but .... why or how does it take so long in the finish step and if I select mpeg when I capture or import the footage, it is in real time?

Im really lost and confused by all this. I hope you can help a newbie understand.

thanks!

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:08 am

The answer to that is on page 1 of the above link, I took you straight to page two.

Basically, think of an AVI File as the equivalant of a still image BMP which is large in file size and uncompressed.

Think of an MPEG file as the equivalant of a still image JPG. Small in file size as it has been compressed (and bits discarded).

Both types (AVI and MPEG) are a series of pictures that flash before your eyes PAL - 25 images every second or NTSC just under 30. Remember the old flick book they probably demonstrated back in your old school days to make a cartoon.

When you convert an AVI to an MPEG every one of those pictures has to be converted. Imagine now how many pictures are in a hours worth, thats what takes the time.

If you captured in MPEG in the first place there should be no need to convert it all for a second time - this is where "smart render" comes into play. The final video only has to 'render' any changed bits such as where you have inserted transitions or added some music etc.

If your MPEG's are taking a long time to render check to see if you have smart render turned on. If its turned off it renders everything whether it needed to be rendered or not.

DiscCoasterPro · Post by **DiscCoasterPro** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:49 pm

My fault, I think I'm asking wrong. I'm also probably understanding the concept wrong. Allow me another go at this please.

After I shoot (for the sake of explanation) an hour of footage from my camcorder. I plug it into my firewire port and begin the process of capturing the footage to my HD. This is more a generic question, btw for any software capturing program.

I am assuming I can select capture in AVI or MPEG-2. If I select AVI, then I put my camcorder on playback and capture. As I view the capture it is being done. Once my camcorder gets to the end of the footage, the capture is complete.

If I select MPEG-2, the process I use is the same and as I watch the footage as it is capturing. When the footage is complete, so is the capture. Both happen in the same hour of video.

Now, If I capture in AVI as above, then say I trim a tad from the beginning and end of my footage. Then, I select the option to create a DVD or save to a DVD file ..... click ok .... (here comes the question

)

Why is this process so much longer than the one hour it would have taken to make an mpeg-2 file from the original capture? Is there some additional step occuring in the end or finish process that is also very CPU intensive? I mean, is creating the DVD folder/file structure also another involved process beyond the mpeg-2 encoding?

I hope I did better there

ps. also a side note. In reading an authoring book I purchased, there may be something I'm understanding wrong also. It mentions something about a computer having a much more difficult time "capturing" to mpeg-2 rather than AVI because it must keep up "on the fly" with the incoming video. It says this is where the possibility of dropped frames happens.

On the other hand, if you capture to AVI and encode to mpeg-2 after the file is on your HD, the computer can work at its own pace and therefore result in much less of a chance of dropping frames.

At this point, I'm so confused that I'm really not sure what I'm reading.

thank you very much for attempting to educate this tree stump

thanks,

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:41 pm

Actually you have it right.
To capture in MPEG 'on the fly' you need a powerful computer able to keep up with the speed of the camcorder otherwise you will get what is termed
"dropped frames", on a slower computer you might end up say catching 24 frames a second instead of 25 because as the computer is capturing it is unable to keep up.

Fast and powerful computers do not have this problem so they are OK to capture in MPEG.

If you only want to trim the ends - ie the start and then end, You could capture in MPEG as this should not affect the sound.

If you are doing any cuts in between the start and end points, you often get out of synch problems as soon as you start joining them back together when you insert transitions. There are a lot of posts in this forum about this.

The easy way to explain why is think of two pieces of film. To create a transition you slightly overlap them to join them together. This makes the film slightly shorter - due to the overlap. This is also where editing in MPEG has a tendency to make the sound out of synch and you end up with people saying things on the screen after they have been 'seen' to say them. You do not get this problem with an AVI.

This is because normal video editors were designed to work with AVI files. To do the same job with MPEG's you should use a specialist program that deals with MPEG files such as Womble. Having said that though you will not have the same range of editing options as you do with Video Studio, think of it as a watered down version.

The other thing to consider with editing an MPEG file is that the quality is already lower as it is a compressed format. If you were dealing with ordinary still pictures the MPEG is the same as a JPEG. So when you render it it the quality gets worse again. AVI files can be editing several times before you notice any drop in quality.

Yes, your observations are correct - if You capture in AVI it does take a lot longer for the computer to later convert it to MPEG, A one hour capture could easily take two - two and a half hours to convert. Thjis is because the computer is not forced to work so fast and you will not get any dropped frames.

DiscCoasterPro · Post by **DiscCoasterPro** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:56 pm

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it! As we speak, I'm waiting for my new (at the risk of getting struck by lightening, here at the Ulead forum) software and hardware order. Its the New Pinnacle vers 10 media suite and a new Canopus 300 converter. I just hadda check out the pinnacle thing.

I do have VS8 VS9 and DVD Workshop 2 .. so please folks, don't shoot me.

thanks again!

Garry Craske · Post by **Garry Craske** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:45 pm

The easy way to explain why is think of two pieces of film. To create a transition you slightly overlap them to join them together. This makes the film slightly shorter - due to the overlap. This is also where editing in MPEG has a tendency to make the sound out of synch and you end up with people saying things on the screen after they have been 'seen' to say them. You do not get this problem with an AVI

Too true as i found out to my cost !!
When i burned a DVD last week of a wedding it was playing fine until i got to the point where i did quite a bit of cutting. All looked fine in ULead until i burned the disc and played it.

True enough the sound was out of sync which meant i had another coaster !!

I usually save as MPEG2 direct from my GS250, but from now on it's got to be AVI.

Regards,
Garry

kebrinton · Post by **kebrinton** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:22 pm

Hi everybody.

I don't think every single transition puts you into the OOS (out of sync) mud.

A cross-fade naturally has to "shorten" the video in order to have the old scene fade out against the new scene. Originally they didn't appear on screen at the same time.

But a simple fade out - fade in shouldn't cause the problem.

Also, it depends on the material you're working with. I've never had OOS problems with footage from my digital videocamera. But working from old VHS videos of my kids onstage, the OOS became laughable. I don't know why this would be, because by the time you have it in VideoStudio it's all digital. How could the computer know where it came from?

Keith