Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

DVD Authoring and Burning program?

 
 
:Jerry:
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2007

"G Hardy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:yFAAi.23869$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "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.


He would also be best to avoid lousy formats (such as JPEG) when
saving image stills, not sure what his various software supports but,
he should be saving his image sequences in an uncompressed format such
as TIFF, (Photoshop) PSD or failing that Bitmap.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
xeaglecrest@att.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
Ken Maltby wrote:
<(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....snip


To refresh everyone, I got involved in this discussion when someone was
having trouble adding a bunch of still photos to a timeline and having
his editing program hang up. Because I had ran into the same problem
myself, I suggested adding a hundred or so stills at a time, and
rendering them as a DV AVI file. Once all the pictures were saved in
the AVI files, they could be brought back into the time line and the
editing program would threat them as any other movie, and should render
the project with no problems. This is a solution that has worked for me
in the past.

Others suggested that there would be a quality loss with this method; so
I decided to do a test and see if my methodology was sound. I took a
still picture (one frame) and rendered it as File01.AVI. I then started
a new project and used File 01.AVI as the source and rendered it to a
new file called File02.AVI. I repeated this nine times. I then started
a new project and imported all nine files to the timeline. My movie
was now 9 frames long, and each successive frame was a copy of the
previous with the last one being a 9th generation copy. I then placed
a copy of frame #1 (the 1st generation original) at the end of the movie
so after rendering to DVD, I could step forward/back a frame at a time
and do a comparison of the quality. Guess what...using the HDMI cable
of my DVD player, I could detect no difference in the quality between
the 1st and 9th generation still frame on my 50" HDTV.

If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested in
their results.

-Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote

>If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested in
>their results.


It doesn't suprise me you found this, because I know from my
distant-past experience with a Matrox video capture product (G200 or
something like that??) that the AVI file produced is just a wrapper
for the data as it was captured, and the AVI file even contains a path
(a real physical path on your hard drive!!) to the codec (a Matrox
codec) which is needed to read the data.

Obviously such an AVI file is completely useless outside the context
of that particular computer. But the data within it doesn't
(necessarily) get recompressed through successive manipulations.

I am sure AVI files have had lots of people going around in circles...
 
Reply With Quote
 
:Jerry:
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007

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


<snip>
>
> If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested
> in
> their results.
>


Apart from the suspect methodology, as outlined by Peter (re .avi
'wrappers' and what they actually contain), might I suggest the test
to be done by sending the play-out to both a vector scope and
histogram rather than to a (LCD/Plasma) TV that will have all sorts of
error correction built in.


 
Reply With Quote
 
G Hardy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> To refresh everyone, I got involved in this discussion when someone was
> having trouble adding a bunch of still photos to a timeline and having
> his editing program hang up. Because I had ran into the same problem
> myself, I suggested adding a hundred or so stills at a time, and
> rendering them as a DV AVI file. Once all the pictures were saved in
> the AVI files, they could be brought back into the time line and the
> editing program would threat them as any other movie, and should render
> the project with no problems. This is a solution that has worked for me
> in the past.
>
> Others suggested that there would be a quality loss with this method; so
> I decided to do a test and see if my methodology was sound. I took a
> still picture (one frame) and rendered it as File01.AVI. I then started
> a new project and used File 01.AVI as the source and rendered it to a
> new file called File02.AVI. I repeated this nine times. I then started
> a new project and imported all nine files to the timeline. My movie
> was now 9 frames long, and each successive frame was a copy of the
> previous with the last one being a 9th generation copy. I then placed
> a copy of frame #1 (the 1st generation original) at the end of the movie
> so after rendering to DVD, I could step forward/back a frame at a time
> and do a comparison of the quality. Guess what...using the HDMI cable
> of my DVD player, I could detect no difference in the quality between
> the 1st and 9th generation still frame on my 50" HDTV.
>
> If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested in
> their results.


The bad news is you didn't render it nine times. As was mentioned elsewhere
in the thread, virtually every editing program will "smart render" video* -
DV video especially - meaning that unless you do something to the video
frame (or turn "smart render" off) each generation will be almost a byte for
byte copy of the previous one. The only time you rendered your stills to DV
was the first generation. After that, you were just copying the file.

Try it again, this time adding a subtle title to the bottom of each
generation, showing the number of that generation. It doesn't really matter
if each generation's digit overlays the last one, but it will look a mess,
so you might want to start at one side and work your way to the other. the
purpose of adding the title is to force your video to be rendered, not just
copied.

I've got an old set of generational DV frames that show the effect of
repeated true rendering. The first image is at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft0.jpg and is the frame
captured directly from the camera.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft1.jpg is the same frame
after I forced it to render, then checkerboarded against ft0 to show the
difference. You can just see the checkerboard pattern if you look hard
enough, but you probably wouldn't be able to see it if you watched the
uncheckerboarded version and the original video side by side. This shows
that the quality loss is there, but whether you'd be able to see it is
another matter.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft2.jpg is the same frame
after its second forced render, again checkerboarded against the original
frame to show the difference.

Anyway, the full list of links is:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft0.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft1.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft2.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft3.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft4.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft5.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft6.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft7.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft8.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ft9.jpg

It illustrates the effect of continual re-renders of the same video. There's
another file, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gareth.hardy1/mug/ftz.jpg, which
is the same as ft9, but without forced render: No visible difference. It's
interesting to note that in the 31,804,228 bytes of smartrendered AVI, only
seven bytes change with each generation.


* As long as the source video properties match the editor project settings.

 
Reply With Quote
 
:Jerry:
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
[ apologies if this message is a duplicate ]

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


<snip>
>
> If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested
> in
> their results.
>


Apart from the suspect methodology, as outlined by Peter (re .avi
'wrappers' and what they actually contain), might I suggest the test
to be done by sending the play-out to both a vector scope and
histogram rather than to a (LCD/Plasma) TV that will have all sorts of
error correction built in.


 
Reply With Quote
 
xeaglecrest@att.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
G Hardy wrote:
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > To refresh everyone, I got involved in this discussion when someone was
> > having trouble adding a bunch of still photos to a timeline and having
> > his editing program hang up. Because I had ran into the same problem
> > myself, I suggested adding a hundred or so stills at a time, and
> > rendering them as a DV AVI file. Once all the pictures were saved in
> > the AVI files, they could be brought back into the time line and the
> > editing program would threat them as any other movie, and should render
> > the project with no problems. This is a solution that has worked for me
> > in the past.
> >
> > Others suggested that there would be a quality loss with this method; so
> > I decided to do a test and see if my methodology was sound. I took a
> > still picture (one frame) and rendered it as File01.AVI. I then started
> > a new project and used File 01.AVI as the source and rendered it to a
> > new file called File02.AVI. I repeated this nine times. I then started
> > a new project and imported all nine files to the timeline. My movie
> > was now 9 frames long, and each successive frame was a copy of the
> > previous with the last one being a 9th generation copy. I then placed
> > a copy of frame #1 (the 1st generation original) at the end of the movie
> > so after rendering to DVD, I could step forward/back a frame at a time
> > and do a comparison of the quality. Guess what...using the HDMI cable
> > of my DVD player, I could detect no difference in the quality between
> > the 1st and 9th generation still frame on my 50" HDTV.
> >
> > If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested in
> > their results.

>
> The bad news is you didn't render it nine times. As was mentioned elsewhere
> in the thread, virtually every editing program will "smart render" video* -
> DV video especially - meaning that unless you do something to the video
> frame (or turn "smart render" off) each generation will be almost a byte for
> byte copy of the previous one. The only time you rendered your stills to DV
> was the first generation. After that, you were just copying the file.


Haven't you just proven my point. If you are just combining a bunch of
stills
into a movie, and the program does not re-render the project, then there
is no
loss of quality. That was what I was saying in the first place

> Try it again, this time adding a subtle title to the bottom of each
> generation, showing the number of that generation. It doesn't really matter
> if each generation's digit overlays the last one, but it will look a mess,
> so you might want to start at one side and work your way to the other. the
> purpose of adding the title is to force your video to be rendered, not just
> copied.


I do not even have to try that to know that it will degrade the video.
Anytime
you add an overlay to the video, you are going to degrade it a little.
The
object here is to just get a balky program that chokes when it has to
process
a bunch of stills on the timeline to work. My suggestion will work with
no loss
in quality of the original stills.

-Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
xeaglecrest@att.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007
:Jerry: wrote:
>
> [ apologies if this message is a duplicate ]
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Ken Maltby wrote:

>
> <snip>
> >
> > If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested
> > in
> > their results.
> >

>
> Apart from the suspect methodology, as outlined by Peter (re .avi
> 'wrappers' and what they actually contain), might I suggest the test
> to be done by sending the play-out to both a vector scope and
> histogram rather than to a (LCD/Plasma) TV that will have all sorts of
> error correction built in.


The guy is using a $99 editing program. I doubt if he has a vector
scope in his basement to prove his eye is lying to him. I think he just
wants to get his project done. My suggestion will allow him to proceed
with a balky program. The fact that he has not chimed back in suggests
to me that he is busily finishing his movie.
-Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
:Jerry:
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007

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

<snip>
>>
>> The bad news is you didn't render it nine times. As was mentioned
>> elsewhere
>> in the thread, virtually every editing program will "smart render"
>> video* -
>> DV video especially - meaning that unless you do something to the
>> video
>> frame (or turn "smart render" off) each generation will be almost a
>> byte for
>> byte copy of the previous one. The only time you rendered your
>> stills to DV
>> was the first generation. After that, you were just copying the
>> file.

>
> Haven't you just proven my point. If you are just combining a
> bunch of
> stills
> into a movie, and the program does not re-render the project, then
> there
> is no
> loss of quality. That was what I was saying in the first place


No he hasn't, what do you not understand about the fact that the DV
codec compresses (@ 5:1) the source, be that your image file being
frame-served or the out-put of the CCD stage of a camera - what, AIUI,
Gareth was demonstrating in his post is the fact that DV is *not*
'none-lousy' (although being digital it's a bite for bite copy when
transferred to computer or another tape, unlike analogue which suffers
from generational loses), by revealingly rendering the same (DV) .avi
file you will see that each render introduces compression artefacts.

>
>> Try it again, this time adding a subtle title to the bottom of each
>> generation, showing the number of that generation. It doesn't
>> really matter
>> if each generation's digit overlays the last one, but it will look
>> a mess,
>> so you might want to start at one side and work your way to the
>> other. the
>> purpose of adding the title is to force your video to be rendered,
>> not just
>> copied.

>
> I do not even have to try that to know that it will degrade the
> video.
> Anytime
> you add an overlay to the video, you are going to degrade it a
> little.
> The
> object here is to just get a balky program that chokes when it has
> to
> process
> a bunch of stills on the timeline to work. My suggestion will work
> with
> no loss
> in quality of the original stills.
>


Whoooosssshhhh....

That's some codec if it doesn't compress the first (normally in
camera) render but then compresses subsequent renders - think about
what you're first admitting to and then attempting to claim in what
you said above!

--
Jerry - on an different NNTP server.
Someone managed to break the other one!


 
Reply With Quote
 
:Jerry:
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2007

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> :Jerry: wrote:
>>
>> [ apologies if this message is a duplicate ]
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Ken Maltby wrote:

>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be
>> > interested
>> > in
>> > their results.
>> >

>>
>> Apart from the suspect methodology, as outlined by Peter (re .avi
>> 'wrappers' and what they actually contain), might I suggest the
>> test
>> to be done by sending the play-out to both a vector scope and
>> histogram rather than to a (LCD/Plasma) TV that will have all sorts
>> of
>> error correction built in.

>
> The guy is using a $99 editing program. I doubt if he has a vector
> scope in his basement to prove his eye is lying to him. I think he
> just
> wants to get his project done. My suggestion will allow him to
> proceed
> with a balky program. The fact that he has not chimed back in
> suggests
> to me that he is busily finishing his movie.



We are not debating about what the OP wants to do but you assertion
that the DV codec is non lousy. My suggestion was to you, not the OP,
that you check your assertions with a vector scope - I can understand
why you might wish not to and yet again try and deflect the argument
back to the OP's problem!
--
Jerry - on an different NNTP server.
Someone managed to break the other one!


 
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