DVD Authoring and Burning program?

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

  1. John

    xeaglecrest Guest

    Ken Maltby wrote:
    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
     
    xeaglecrest, Aug 28, 2007
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. John

    Peter Guest

    wrote
    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...
     
    Peter, Aug 28, 2007
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. John

    :Jerry: Guest

    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.
     
    :Jerry:, Aug 28, 2007
    #63
  4. John

    G Hardy Guest

    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.
     
    G Hardy, Aug 28, 2007
    #64
  5. John

    :Jerry: Guest

    [ apologies if this message is a duplicate ]

    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.
     
    :Jerry:, Aug 28, 2007
    #65
  6. John

    xeaglecrest Guest

    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
    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
     
    xeaglecrest, Aug 28, 2007
    #66
  7. John

    xeaglecrest Guest

    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
     
    xeaglecrest, Aug 28, 2007
    #67
  8. John

    :Jerry: Guest

    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.
    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:, Aug 28, 2007
    #68
  9. John

    :Jerry: Guest


    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:, Aug 28, 2007
    #69
  10. John

    Ken Maltby Guest

    I am certainly one who honors the practical and I
    agree that, for the OP, your method would work.
    Your general assertion about DV could be viewed
    as a common misconception, that needed correction
    least it lead some readers astray.

    It should be noted though, that the OP can do exactly
    what he was asking for using the Batch Convert feature
    of Ulead's VideoStudio.

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, Aug 28, 2007
    #70
  11. John

    G Hardy Guest

    No, because you suggested that when the stills are made into a movie, it
    should use the DV codec, which is a lossy render.

    I can see that this is a discussion that's going nowhere. Perhaps the OP
    will review all the stuff that's been written and make up his own mind
    what's best.
     
    G Hardy, Aug 28, 2007
    #71
  12. John

    Peter Guest

    wrote
    I am not the OP but having hijacked the thread I am indeed getting on
    with it ;)

    I had to give up on the 5-sec interval shooting with the Ricoh Caplio
    R6 though - the finished 25fps movie was far too jumpy.

    And there was no way to do faster interval shooting, without spending
    some serious money (DSLR & a remote controller).

    So I bought a Logitech Quickcam webcam. Webcams are so dirt cheap that
    I bought the most expensive one I could find, in the hope that it
    might be reasonable. It's OK, but nothing as good as the cheapest
    digital camera shooting low-res stills. The webcam actually does
    960x720 max which is reasonable for generating a 576-line movie.

    Pinnacle 10.5 handles the folder with a few thousand images OK. Very
    very slowly in some areas e.g. configuring the "duration" of each
    image (a wholly suspect concept if making a 'one image per frame'
    movie) is very slow because the program applies the value immediately
    to all the images held in memory, so it goes away for a while. Then it
    crashes about 70% of the time, but it does save its config so I get
    there eventually. The actual movie generation is reasonably quick.

    A friend has a Mac which comes ready with some software for this, and
    this is about 10x faster than Pinnacle.
     
    Peter, Aug 29, 2007
    #72
    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.