DVD Authoring and Burning program?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John, Aug 14, 2007.

  1. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

    I gave it a quick try in Ulead VideoStudio 10+ and could put
    a reasonable chunk ( a couple of hundred) of JPEGs on the
    timelime at a time. 10,000 could require adding them in
    chunks. I didn't try for a larger chunk, though so I don't
    know if there is a max number you can do at a time.

    The problem comes in with the still duration. I didn't find a
    way to set the duration for a large number of images. Setting
    each one of 10,000 could be a pain. Even setting the default
    still duration in the options didn't seem to work.

    I still believe using one of the Virtual Dub versions would be
    a better approach, for this kind of frame by frame effort.
    Another more likely approach is with an encoder, most let
    you encode a sequence of images, with varying levels of
    support for creating an animation.

    Frameserving with the "filters" and processing available may
    be your best bet though.

    Ken Maltby, Aug 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. John

    Peter Guest

    This is the same problem I had with Pinnacle. Have you seen the other
    thread I posted, or has someone issued a forged delete message?

    IMV when doing this kind of thing, the frame duration should just be
    the 1 / frame-rate. In Pinnacle I can do select-all, then reduce the
    default frame duration (4 seconds) to 0.01 sec.

    I will have a look at GIMP. However, after some experiments yesterday
    I am finding that my 5 second interval is much too long and I need
    about 0.5 - 1 second. There isn't any still camera that can do this
    automatically; possibly some DSLR can with a remote controller, and I
    will have to look at using a webcam for which you can get software
    that does exactly that.
    Peter, Aug 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

    You need to add the GAP plug-in to Gimp 2.2.8 or greater
    to get the animation specific tools. Both the current Gimp
    2.2.17 and the GAP plugin are together on the download

    Some of what you seem to want to do could be a good
    match with Stop Motion Animation/ Time lapse programs




    Ken Maltby, Aug 25, 2007
  4. John

    G Hardy Guest

    MSP, Videostudio's "older brother", allows you to set the default inserted
    clip duration, so that (for example) colour clips, titles and inserted
    stills all have a particular duration. The parameter can be found in the
    "preferences" dialog.

    VS is produced by different developers to MSP inside Ulead, though, so it's
    not necessarily there. If you use the "insert image" button, you can change
    the number of frames for each image there, too.
    Does this help?

    Alternatively, speed up the video by 2500% ;o)
    G Hardy, Aug 25, 2007
  5. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

    OK, I tried again and looked for a convert function in VideoStudio
    and it works!!

    From Batch Convert in the "Tools" tab.

    Select the type of file you want to convert to, probably
    uncompressed AVI.

    Then "Add" files of type "Ulead Image Sequence Files (*.uis)".

    Click on the "Options" button to bring up the "Define Image Sequence"

    Use the "Select..." button to find your first image file in the
    folder you have your JPEGs (There are several tools that are
    pretty standard to help you with this stage)

    When you are done with this step you will have a .uis file that
    you can select for the "Open Video File" window (the one "Add"
    from the batch file window took you to) Click, "Open" and you
    will be back at the "Batch Convert" window.

    Now check your "Options...".

    Then highlight your .uis file, and click on the "Convert" button.

    This was actually quite easy and gave me one frame per image,
    where as I had to deal with duration for each image when working
    on the timeline.

    Most of the info I had found dealt with generating a sequence
    of images not putting them back together, this method seems to
    work very well.

    Ken Maltby, Aug 25, 2007
  6. John

    xeaglecrest Guest

    I gave it a quick try in Ulead VideoStudio 10+ and could put
    Pinnacle Studio 9 will do what you want. Go to Setup>Edit>Titles/Stills
    and set the duration to .01 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. From there you can use any editing program you want
    to create the final movie.
    xeaglecrest, Aug 25, 2007
  7. ATI multimedia cards comes with software that do time lapse of video from
    composite or S-Video. Can look later to see what limits it has. Also does
    motion triggered.
    Captain Midnight, Aug 25, 2007
  8. John

    G Hardy Guest

    Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
    G Hardy, Aug 26, 2007
  9. John

    xeaglecrest Guest

    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.
    xeaglecrest, Aug 26, 2007
  10. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

    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.

    Ken Maltby, Aug 26, 2007
  11. John

    Rock Troll Guest

    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.
    Rock Troll, Aug 26, 2007
  12. John

    Trev Guest

    But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs
    Trev, Aug 26, 2007
  13. John

    :Jerry: Guest

    There is no 'D8' format, perhaps you mean Digital8, quite
    :Jerry:, Aug 26, 2007
  14. John

    G Hardy Guest

    Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
    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.
    G Hardy, Aug 26, 2007
  15. John

    G Hardy Guest

    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

    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
    G Hardy, Aug 26, 2007
  16. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

    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.

    Ken Maltby, Aug 27, 2007
  17. John

    Peter Guest

    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.
    Peter, Aug 27, 2007
  18. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

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


    But now this thread has truly been hijacked.

    Ken Maltby, Aug 27, 2007
  19. John

    G Hardy Guest

    in message
    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.
    G Hardy, Aug 27, 2007
  20. John

    :Jerry: Guest

    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.
    :Jerry:, Aug 27, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.