VSO Software Forum

[swampdaddy]

Awhile back there was a poll about what people preferred. 4x slower encoding for higher quality got a lot votes. Any news as to when a new version might appear with this option?

I am sure looking forward to this higher quality encoding as an option.

Harry

[JJ]

Higher quality as in bigger resolution?
Sounds good, but it requires BlueRay burner to be useful.

Higher quality with same resolution?
Check logs of most users, almost every log shows that maximum bitrate is already used, quality is not getting better with those oiginals.

So; how many do have BR burner? And BR/HD originals to convert?

[Coral]

No software will perform miracles. Converting to ruby laser DVD standard is limited by mpeg2 compression which is lossy + a resolution of 720x576 for PAL or 720x480 for NTSC, against the higher resolution in blue laser DVD standard.

Also, a predominant factor is the quality of the movie that is being transcoded. Most movies are in DivX compression and if in a low resoluston and inferior quality not much will be achieved by a "higher quality" encoder which could result only in a waste of time.

If it is there as an option, then I would'nt mind using the option on "uncompressed" digital avi material. Otherwise I'm quite happy with the present setup.

Anyway, this topic has it's roots in another thread where everyting has been expertly pointed out.

[PrivBan]

Coral

Lots of the current torrent files are available as high resolution MKV containers, with resolutions up to 1280X.....Upon encoding in CX2D they all fall back to 720X576, if no B.R burner is available.

So, the question is, why this option would be used in "uncompressed digital avi material"?

Regards

[Coral]

Elementary PrivBan, Home videos from digital camcorders !

[Fonzzie31]

"uncompressed digital avi material" has absolutely no-sense with convertxtodvd or other dvd converters. Same thing for blu-ray converters...

There is something you forgot.
VSO did not create the DVD and BLU RAY standards used on dvd and bluray home players.

For DVD there is absolutely no chance to have higher resolution than 720x576 (PAL) and 720x480 (NTSC). Why ? Because the MPEG2 codecs for dvds were designed as they are. The DVD bitrate can't exceed 9800 Kbps, including audio stream.

For high resolution, the MPEG2 codec is different, but only used with some high definition dvd recorders. The bitrate can reach 15Mbps. For Blu ray, the codec is different and permits higher bitrate than dvd. Of course you can burn dvds on blu-ray, but you'll comply with dvd standard... not blu ray one...

Of course we need to release something for bluray and high resolution.. But it will be a completely different product.

[PrivBan]

Thanks

[Coral]

Fonzzie31, I agree with you on your third paragraph. I have mentiond this right at the begining of my reply:

"No software will perform miracles. Converting to ruby laser DVD standard is limited by mpeg2 compression which is lossy + a resolution of 720x576 for PAL or 720x480 for NTSC, against the higher resolution in blue laser DVD standard."

When I mentioed "uncompressed" avi from digital camcorders. I had in mind that if a higher quality encoder is used, even if it is slower, then the degradation of the movie will be much less since ther will be the essential two factors to minimize quality loss one of which is the high quality movie.

I have edited digital movies in both good and poor quality encoders.
I will not mention any names for obvious resons.
From high quality encoders the degradation in picture quality was far much less than that from a poor quality encoders using the same material.

I am quite pleased with the rendering quality of ConvertX, that I can say.

If one starts off with qood material and use a (slow) high quality encoder the end result will be good because the encoder would have done its job.
Using a (fast) inferior encoder, even if one uses good quality material, the end result will always be inferior. This is why I mentioned digital (almost) uncompressed avi.

[swampdaddy]

Hi again: Perhaps I should have filled in more information on why I made that post. Yes, all video quality is going to be related to the quality of the original source material and no software is going to correct deficiencies in the original material.

Last year I bought a 61" widescreen TV and my desire for better quality has increased. Material that previously looked OK or acceptable on my 27" TV from converted and burned material now looked at best fuzzy or at worst quite pixelated on the bigger TV.

On commercial DVDs even the 'upcode' feature on the player I had for the bigger TV didn't do much to improve quality; and, it forced all material into a fixed aspect ratio making some material very distorted.

As an experiment I downloaded a movie in both standard and blu-ray versions. Both were tried in Convert X (and I have no blu-ray burner, and no blu-ray player for the big TV). But, the blu-ray version, of course, looked far superior when burned on a dual-layer blank and played on the big TV. Crisp and clear.

While not imagining I can increase the quality of a poor original I was hoping that at least with better encoding I would not lose anything that was there to start with because of the quick encoding.

As a further experiment the same two originals (standard and blu-ray) were encoded by two other programs (one straight play, one with a simplified menu not nearly as nice as the ones ConvertX makes). After watching this movie now 6 times I can say that Convert X produced the superior result when working with the blu-ray version burned on a standard (not blu-ray) dual layer blank. But all three did about the same on converting the standard version as far as I could tell.

Most downloadable material is compressed too much I guess; but, we all know the tradeoffs between size and quality when using the internet. What I would like is to at least maintain the 720x480 at the quality as it is on commercial DVDs. I was wanting to experiment with better encoding in ConvertX to see what the results were.

Perhaps I am dreaming, and, maybe I've combined a lot of technical things into one seeking a simple answer for which I apologize . I am learning as I go. As to wasting time and space in a conversion I don't worry about that as the best result is what I want. Besides you can let the computer run while at work or while asleep.

I still want to see if the slower encoding would improve my final result; and, I will not be burning multiple copies of things. Once I determine which combination of things works for me I use that exclusively.

Overall, Convert X does a better job than the other two as far as producing a DVD; but, both of the others also edit so they still have their uses.

Harry

[PrivBan]

Harry

Which other "two" encoding programs are you refering to?

Pls share the knowledge, this is an expertise forum not a secret camp..

[swampdaddy]

No particular secret about the other two:

a) Pinnacle Studio 10.5 Titanium ( editor is great, menu maker is a bit complicated)

b) Sony Movie Studio + DVD (Video editor 9.0 plus DVD Architect 4.0)

I did not mention them by name as I did not want the thread to veer into a discussion of the programs, about which was better or whatever.

I was just curious as to how VSO was responding to the poll awhile back as, after all, they put the poll up, most people voted for better encoding, and I was wonder when (or if) this might appear in a newer version of Convert X?

Harry

[hansK]

Hi swampdaddy,

I can assure you that it is already in a working version (V4 Alpha)
I have seen it working.
VSO is tweaking it now.
Release date i do not know.

Regards,
hansK

[souper]

Swampdaddy a simple saying that goes with encoding is garbage in, garbage out. Especially if your downloading xvids (which are heavily encoded). Xvids re-encoded to DVD will look like shit, and even worse on a 61 inch TV. They are adding new rescalers to the new version which will help to retain more detail n such. Also a option to use 2passes which "should" also increase quality, well atleast at lower bitrates.

[Coral]

Swampdaddy a simple saying that goes with encoding is garbage in, garbage out. Especially if your downloading xvids (which are heavily encoded). Xvids re-encoded to DVD will look like shit, and even worse on a 61 inch TV. They are adding new rescalers to the new version which will help to retain more detail n such. Also a option to use 2passes which "should" also increase quality, well atleast at lower bitrates.

I fully agree with you. That is why I mentioned digital video further up.
You could have the best encoding engine that exists. If the material that you pass through it is poor, one can't expect that the encoder will fix it. Infact it can only get worse.

On larger resolutions like the ones mentioned by PrivBan, it stands to reason that better quality should be expected since the movie resolution is being shrunk rarther than stretched. This will also help to minimize the effects of artifacts that are quite common in highly compressed and shrunk movies.

In my personal opinion (and I respect the others) to judge a good encoder I put in the best quality I can afford and see how much of that is lost in the finished job.

Another aspect of an encoder is keeping the aspect ratio of the movie. Some are hopless at it although the picture quality is good. As I said elsewhere, I like to be in control throughout the whole process of building the DVD, from encodeing to authoring.

The tools I use are mainly:
TMPGEnc 4 Express
Nero Vision
Mainconcept MCH264
AVIDemux
Ulead Media Studio
Ulead DVD Workshop 2
and the best tool I have found for a quick job ConvertX

[swampdaddy]

Well, I am awaiting the new v4 of ConvertX with anticipation for trying out. are any Beta testers needed when it reaches that stage?

[swampdaddy]

I don't get to the forums as often as I should . I may have missed any announcements. Is a beta test edition of the new v4 ready yet?

And, if so, where can I get it to try out?

Thanks, Swamp Daddy