mpeg format

[matrix man]

ok first i want to say that this is a very good forum for ulead video studio 9 program and i thank everyone for helping me so far.
so after such a long study about the program and it's properites i came to several conclusions that i'm not sure of and i would be glad if u can respond to them:
1. the best dvd format for a film captured from a dv camera to the computer is mpeg 2
2. it doesn't matter what are the capture properties and the project properties . the only thing that is important is the properties in the create video file.

[DVDDoug]

1. the best dvd format for a film captured from a dv camera to the computer is mpeg 2

Well... Your DVD is going to be MPEG-2 encoded. So, in some cases it's OK to capture to MPEG-2.

However... Any editing (other than cutting & splicing) is going to require de-coding & re-coding. MPEG is "lossy", so the video gets degraded every time you encode. Editing MPEGs can even "corrupt" them, resulting in wierd problems like crashing Ulead programs or audio-video sync problems.

So it's generally better to keep the DV format and let Video Studio or your DVD authoring software do the MPEG encoding at the "last minute."

2. it doesn't matter what are the capture properties and the project properties . the only thing that is important is the properties in the create video file.

Of course if you use a low-quality capture setting, a higher-quality setting for the output file is not going to restore it! It's a "link in the chain."

[jchunter]

MatrixMan,
1) Mpeg2 is perfectly OK to capture to if you have a fast CPU, as explained in the top sticky post. Moreover, I have edited and re-edited mpeg2 video clips which contain a video resolution chart with no visible degredation. If your properties are set up right and your video bitrate is high, loss is not visible on a resolution chart.

DV in an AVI wrapper is also perfectly OK to capture to with most any CPU speed as long as you have lots of disk space to store the larger files.

2) However, properties (as also emphasized in the Recommended Procedure) are essential to manage precisely at every step of the process including capture, edit, Create Video file, and Burn.

3) Buggy software can corrupt any video format.

John

[PeterMilliken]

Some others in the forum have also mentioned that editing in .avi format is more "natural" for VS than mpeg2 - you might want to search for these posts and verify exactly what was said and why. I have no personal experience since I do not have a PC that is fast enough to capture in mpeg2 and have always performed my editing with avi.

Another perhaps minor consideration is that if you capture and edit in avi then VS9 can display the DV timecode i.e. the date/time at which the video footage was shot - I believe that this is unavailable when the video is in mpeg2 format (I am happy to stand correction on this - but this is what my experimentation has shown with creating mpeg2 from avi and then re-incorporating them into my projects - perhaps if you capture in mpeg2 you retain the DV timecode?).

Peter

[2Dogs]

Another perhaps minor consideration is that if you capture and edit in avi then VS9 can display the DV timecode i.e. the date/time at which the video footage was shot - I believe that this is unavailable when the video is in mpeg2 format

That is indeed the case - although you need a VMR compatible video card. My own MX440 does not appear to be able to make use of this feature. I want a new video card now, dammit!

In addition, when capturing to avi, you can make use of the "split by scene" feature, whereby the captured footage is automatically broken up into clips shot at different times and dates. (but subject to there being no breaks in the timecode) Split by scene is not available for direct to MPEG2 capture.

P.S. hope you get a fast pc for Crimbo, Peter!

[daniel]

Moreover, I have edited and re-edited mpeg2 video clips which contain a video resolution chart with no visible degredation.

John,
Was there any movement in your video chart?

MPEG is encoding differences between one picture and the previous (or the I-frame at the start of the GOP).
I wouldn't be suprised that what goes well for static parts of a video can be disastrous for fast changing sequences.

I'm not saying re-editing MPEG can't be done, because I never tried it, but given the nature of some aspects of its compression scheme, I doubt a double encoding would be harmless.

[DiscCoasterPro]

I guess the bottom line is, unless you don't have any hard drive space why even make it an issue, just use the AVI for editing and then convert. No?

dcp

[heinz-oz]

I guess the bottom line is, unless you don't have any hard drive space why even make it an issue, just use the AVI for editing and then convert. No?

dcp

Yes

[PeterMilliken]

I guess the bottom line is, unless you don't have any hard drive space why even make it an issue, just use the AVI for editing and then convert. No?

dcp

No is right I believe that one of the attractions of editing in mpeg format (besides the disk space issue) is a rendering time issue i.e. if the video is already mpeg2 then the time to render (to mpeg2) is cut dramatically. Once againg, without experience I could be providing false information here but I believe that if there are not too many edit changes i.e. transitions etc then the process of rendering mpeg2 files to DVD form is significantly reduced.

[THoff]

There are two other advantages to NOT capturing directly to MPEG2 format -- the ability to use 2-pass VBR encoding, and the ability to adjust the bitrate to take full advantage of the available capacity for lengthy projects that required editing (you don't always know exactly how long your masterpiece winds up being).

Both of these output settings are most useful when you have a lengthy video, or complex footage where VBR encoding might yield better results.

[jchunter]

Daniel,
I use three techniques for comparing resolution:

(1) A BMP or jpeg of a standard ISO 12233 resolution chart that can go into the timeline to check the static effects of editing, rerendering, transcoding, burning, etc.

(2) A video of a picture of the same ISO chart for comparing the resolution of video when captured to different video file formats. Panning the camera across the chart, can show the effects of incorrect field order on interlaced video.

(3) A moving video download from http://www.streamcrest.com/motion1.pdf in uncompressed AVI that I have converted to mpeg2 and to DV and insert in the timeline to measure the effects of motion on resolution. This one will knock your socks off.

I encourage everyone to try these tools.

John

[daniel]

There are two other advantages to NOT capturing directly to MPEG2 format -- the ability to use 2-pass VBR encoding, and the ability to adjust the bitrate to take full advantage of the available capacity for lengthy projects that required editing (you don't always know exactly how long your masterpiece winds up being).

Both of these output settings are most useful when you have a lengthy video, or complex footage where VBR encoding might yield better results.

and 2.1: the output quality of a slow and careful encoding is often better for the same rate than having to do it in almost real time while capturing.
Obviously the algorithms don't have the same amount of options for fine-tuning.

John: thanks for you explanations.