Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > DVD Authoring and Burning program?

Reply
Thread Tools

DVD Authoring and Burning program?

 
 
Ken Maltby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>G Hardy wrote:
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> > ...Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
>> > line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times
>> > as
>> > necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio
>> > to
>> > splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie. Because
>> > you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in quality
>> > up to this point.

>>
>> Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
>> DV?

>
> There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
> files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
> can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
> probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.
> -Bill


DV-25 is at least a 5:1 compression of any image data being
encoded into it. The image sensor on a typical Mini-DV camera
supplies a frame image to be encoded into DV-25 that is a little
larger than 720x480 (NTSC). It is supplied as two interlaced
frames. 720x480=345,600 pixels

A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
comparable to per frame.

I'm afraid that DV will suffer compression losses and artifacts
if abused just like any digital format. It may take more abuse
and have smaller, more limited, impact, but there can be very
noticeable impact. And that is in relation to a more compressed
format, not an original image. It is always something less than
any original image data. DV-25 at 25Mbps won't/can't encode
all the image data of a quality still image.

Although it will cost disk space, uncompressed RGB AVI
would be the better format, until time to compress it for DVD
authoring. Even that will not be able to preserve all the image
data from a JPEG still of any reasonable size.

Luck;
Ken


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rock Troll
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:06:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Rock Troll" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:09:22 +0100, Terry Pinnell

>
>>
>> I agree "if" a program can handle several functions easily and
>> reliably, my experience has been that they don't. Not saying they all
>> don't but my experience has shown me that when a program tries to do
>> everything it does nothing well.
>>
>> I did try 1.6's burning tool last night and it worked easily and
>> reliably. I may try it some more. Thanks for the recommendation.
>>
>> The Womble program was the version before MPEG Video Wizard, it might
>> have been mpegVCR. I haven't tried Video Wizard.

>
> I've found that TDA's burning application works well with
>my setup and NEC 2510A, so I also use it to burn DVDs.
>In fact I also use it to burn Data DVDs, as it does the job
>quickly with little fuss. I use Nero Burning ROM for any
>tricky or unusual burning that may crop up, from time to
>time.


>snip


>Luck;
> Ken
>

Would like to thank Terry and Ken for the TDA burning recommendation.
I've been using it exclusively since these messages and have burned
about 15 DVD's. No problems and very reliable. It does make things
easier. I'm very happy with it. Thanks for the recommendation.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007

"Ken Maltby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>G Hardy wrote:
>>>
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> > ...Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
>>> > line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times
>>> > as
>>> > necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio
>>> > to
>>> > splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie.
>>> > Because
>>> > you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in
>>> > quality
>>> > up to this point.
>>>
>>> Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills
>>> to
>>> DV?

>>
>> There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
>> files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
>> can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
>> probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.
>> -Bill

>
> DV-25 is at least a 5:1 compression of any image data being
> encoded into it. The image sensor on a typical Mini-DV camera
> supplies a frame image to be encoded into DV-25 that is a little
> larger than 720x480 (NTSC). It is supplied as two interlaced
> frames. 720x480=345,600 pixels
>
> A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
> comparable to per frame.
>


But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs

> I'm afraid that DV will suffer compression losses and artifacts
> if abused just like any digital format. It may take more abuse
> and have smaller, more limited, impact, but there can be very
> noticeable impact. And that is in relation to a more compressed
> format, not an original image. It is always something less than
> any original image data. DV-25 at 25Mbps won't/can't encode
> all the image data of a quality still image.
>
> Although it will cost disk space, uncompressed RGB AVI
> would be the better format, until time to compress it for DVD
> authoring. Even that will not be able to preserve all the image
> data from a JPEG still of any reasonable size.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
:Jerry:
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...

<snip>
> files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use.


<mode=pedantic>
There is no 'D8' format, perhaps you mean Digital8, quite
different!...
</mode>


 
Reply With Quote
 
G Hardy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
>> Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
>> DV?

>
> There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
> files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
> can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
> probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.


No, I'm thinking DV.

What you wrote, above, is a common misconception about DV. You're mistaken
if you think rendering to DV is lossless. Just because the initial
compression is done in the camera, it doesn't mean that the loss is not
happening. All that's happening when Peter turns his hundreds of JPEGs into
the DV AVI format you suggest is the DV compression is done by the computer,
not a camera.

It's not even appropriate to use MPEG as a comparison. My NLE software (so I
assume most) can work without loss on edited MPEGs as long as the project
settings match those of the MPEG source. There is the issue about rendering
if you don't make cuts on an I frame, but that's a tangent we don't really
need in this thread.

 
Reply With Quote
 
G Hardy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>> A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
>> comparable to per frame.
>>

>
> But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs


That shouldn't really make any difference. A 640x480 image blown up to
720x576 and rendered as DV will still suffer a quality loss, compared to a
640x480 image blown up to 720x576 and rendered uncompressed.

Of course there's the issue of whether such a loss will be noticeable, even
if presented as a still rather than a frame within a video, but it's still
there. This branch of the thread started when Bill implied DV compression is
lossless.

With a still, you can notice per-frame DV artefacts on the first
recompression*, if you're searching for them. They are unacceptable by the
third recompression. I reckon that moving video allows you to get away with
another one or two recompressions, as it's harder to spot imperfections in
moving video.

* Recompressions done on computer, compression already done in camera

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Maltby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007

"G Hardy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsZdAi.21161$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Ken Maltby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
>>> A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
>>> comparable to per frame.
>>>

>>
>> But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs

>
> That shouldn't really make any difference. A 640x480 image blown up to
> 720x576 and rendered as DV will still suffer a quality loss, compared to a
> 640x480 image blown up to 720x576 and rendered uncompressed.
>
> Of course there's the issue of whether such a loss will be noticeable,
> even if presented as a still rather than a frame within a video, but it's
> still there. This branch of the thread started when Bill implied DV
> compression is lossless.
>
> With a still, you can notice per-frame DV artefacts on the first
> recompression*, if you're searching for them. They are unacceptable by the
> third recompression. I reckon that moving video allows you to get away
> with another one or two recompressions, as it's harder to spot
> imperfections in moving video.
>
> * Recompressions done on computer, compression already done in camera



I was providing a simplified explanation as to why the generalized
assertion the DV is totally lossless, is obviously wrong. I thought I
was cleverly pointing out the obvious, not trying to address the
details of this thread. I thought pointing out the difference in pixel
count, for more common quality Jpeg stills, would be an obvious
and simple way to show the error in the assertion.

There are a number of other factors that I could use to show the
fallacy of the assertion, but most are in the eyes glaze over category.
Even the question of using a lossy still image format like JPEG,
makes an absolute example hard without a mass of detail. (The
JPEG could be encoded to any quality level from 100% of a 24bit
RGB image to something much less.) And there is the issue of
subsampling. (And the "Q" number 0-100 doesn't mean what you
would think, Q 100 does not mean 100% in the sense of my
statement above.) And the effect of all this is greatly dependent on
the size of the image. Then there is "color quantization" and how
that relates to transcoding, which leads to "Bit Precision" and the
differences in video "color space formats", and it goes on and on.

Even Bits Per Pixel comparisons can be complicated. Baseline
JPEG stores images with 8 bits per color sample, in other words
24 bits per pixel for RGB images, 8 bits/pixel for grayscale, 32
bits/pixel for CMYK, etc. (Basically, the same as 4:4:4 sampling,
for the color part, anyway. The relation between color and luma
is even more eyes glaze over.)

DV-25's color sampling is 4:1:1. (While that fact alone should
end this, I guess I'll have to go on some more.)

On second thought I have better things to do.

Luck;
Ken




 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
I can report that making a VCD quality (576 lines or whatever the
exact figure is) movie (with Pinnacle 10.5) from 640x480 stills does
generate a movie of reasonable quality. Certainly at least as good as
normal TV reception.

I found other quality limiting problems however, which made me realise
that the pros that do this have to be pulling a few tricks.

For a start, the slightest amount of camera shake or subject movement
screws up the result. Whereas of source if you take one still shot,
then given a fast enough shutter, movement doesn't matter.

So, let's say you want to do one of those classics e.g. a flower
opening up, over several hours. The camera obviously has to be on a
solid tripod (easy) AND the flower has to be completely shielded from
wind (not quite so easy if you also want it to open, which needs
sunlight...); I guess the pros either do it indoors with a lamp, or
they do it outdoors and surround the flower with a perspex enclosure.

The stills came from a Ricoh Caplio R6 whose fastest interval shooting
is 5 secs. I needed under 1 sec and got rid of the camera. (the
battery incidentally lasted for 1400 shots, not bad). Next, I will try
some VGA webcam - there appears to be a selection of PC software which
can capture periodic stills from a webcam. I hope not all webcams are
as crap as all those I have seen so far... I have an Axis 205 webcam
right here, which wasn't at all cheap, and the colour quality is truly
crap compared to a cheap compact camera set to 640x480.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Maltby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007

"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I can report that making a VCD quality (576 lines or whatever the
> exact figure is) movie (with Pinnacle 10.5) from 640x480 stills does
> generate a movie of reasonable quality. Certainly at least as good as
> normal TV reception.
>
> I found other quality limiting problems however, which made me realise
> that the pros that do this have to be pulling a few tricks.
>
> For a start, the slightest amount of camera shake or subject movement
> screws up the result. Whereas of source if you take one still shot,
> then given a fast enough shutter, movement doesn't matter.
>
> So, let's say you want to do one of those classics e.g. a flower
> opening up, over several hours. The camera obviously has to be on a
> solid tripod (easy) AND the flower has to be completely shielded from
> wind (not quite so easy if you also want it to open, which needs
> sunlight...); I guess the pros either do it indoors with a lamp, or
> they do it outdoors and surround the flower with a perspex enclosure.
>
> The stills came from a Ricoh Caplio R6 whose fastest interval shooting
> is 5 secs. I needed under 1 sec and got rid of the camera. (the
> battery incidentally lasted for 1400 shots, not bad). Next, I will try
> some VGA webcam - there appears to be a selection of PC software which
> can capture periodic stills from a webcam. I hope not all webcams are
> as crap as all those I have seen so far... I have an Axis 205 webcam
> right here, which wasn't at all cheap, and the colour quality is truly
> crap compared to a cheap compact camera set to 640x480.


You can look at what is probably mostly the lower cost range
of web cameras here:

http://www.geeks.com/products.asp?Cat=VID

But now this thread has truly been hijacked.

Luck;
Ken


 
Reply With Quote
 
G Hardy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007
"Ken Maltby" wrote in message

> I was providing a simplified explanation as to why the generalized
> assertion the DV is totally lossless, is obviously wrong.


As was I. ;o)

Your explanation was far more technical than mine, but we had the same
goals. I was simply responding to Trev's idea that because the images are
smaller than DV resolution, they won't suffer from the compression when
combined into a DV AVI.

The best way for the OP to combine his stills into a video file is to use
some form of image sequence that utilises his original JPEGs. Compression to
any format, DV included, should be avoided.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a easy-to-use disc authoring and burning software windhello DVD Video 0 08-02-2009 04:40 PM
which consumer DVD authoring software can produce DVD showing date/time encoded on DV tape? someone@somewhere.com DVD Video 0 02-22-2008 07:51 PM
A dvd authoring and burning question Novice DVD Video 3 10-11-2005 03:00 PM
DVD Authoring program that treats each movie on a DVD as a serperate movie ? Son Of Sheep. DVD Video 2 07-10-2005 09:01 PM
DVD Authoring program that treats each movie on a DVD as a serperate movie ? Son Of Sheep. DVD Video 0 07-10-2005 06:31 PM



Advertisments