VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2010
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've been playing around with authoring Blu-ray's and am a little confused on some things. I also have a lot of questions. My source material has been recorded on a Panasonic TM90 at 1080/60p. I used Panasonic HD Writer AE 5.0 to trim and splice various clips, as well as add transitions and titles and then output to a new .m2ts file. This process does not require any re-encoding.

    I have two of these mastered .m2ts files that are intended to be two chapters on a Blu-ray. I want to author these for maximum compatibility with Blu-ray playback devices.

    Here is the MediaInfo for one of the .m2ts files, for reference.
    Code:
    General
    ID                                       : 1 (0x1)
    Complete name                            : D:\Infinity Showcase - Summer 2014 - Snow White.m2ts
    Format                                   : BDAV
    Format/Info                              : Blu-ray Video
    File size                                : 7.22 GiB
    Duration                                 : 41mn 52s
    Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
    Overall bit rate                         : 24.7 Mbps
    Maximum Overall bit rate                 : 35.5 Mbps
    
    Video
    ID                                       : 4113 (0x1011)
    Menu ID                                  : 1 (0x1)
    Format                                   : AVC
    Format/Info                              : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile                           : High@L4.2
    Format settings, CABAC                   : Yes
    Format settings, ReFrames                : 4 frames
    Format settings, GOP                     : M=3, N=30
    Codec ID                                 : 27
    Duration                                 : 41mn 52s
    Bit rate mode                            : Variable
    Bit rate                                 : 23.5 Mbps
    Maximum bit rate                         : 26.0 Mbps
    Width                                    : 1 920 pixels
    Height                                   : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio                     : 16:9
    Frame rate                               : 59.940 fps
    Color space                              : YUV
    Chroma subsampling                       : 4:2:0
    Bit depth                                : 8 bits
    Scan type                                : Progressive
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame)                       : 0.189
    Stream size                              : 6.86 GiB (95%)
    
    Audio
    ID                                       : 4352 (0x1100)
    Menu ID                                  : 1 (0x1)
    Format                                   : AC-3
    Format/Info                              : Audio Coding 3
    Mode extension                           : CM (complete main)
    Format settings, Endianness              : Big
    Codec ID                                 : 129
    Duration                                 : 41mn 52s
    Bit rate mode                            : Constant
    Bit rate                                 : 256 Kbps
    Channel(s)                               : 2 channels
    Channel positions                        : Front: L R
    Sampling rate                            : 48.0 KHz
    Bit depth                                : 16 bits
    Compression mode                         : Lossy
    Delay relative to video                  : -33ms
    Stream size                              : 76.7 MiB (1%)
    I started working in Encore CS6 and created a menu system I like and then output to Blu-ray folder. This authorizing process utilized transcoding and which gave me the \BDMV and \CERTIFICATE subdirectories. I used ImgBurn to burn these folders to a BD-R SL and then I played that in my Sony Blu-ray player. I notice that the motion is different on this Blu-ray vs my original files. The Blu-ray has more of the "film" look that the live/in-person look of the source files.

    I check out the .m2ts files in the \STREAM folder and see they are all 1080/23.976p, which explains things.. I check out Wikipedia and see the Blu-ray specs doesn't support 1080/60p or even 1080/30p, but does support 1080/30i.

    So this brings up a few questions:

    - Is there any way to get 1080/30p or 1080/60p on a Blu-ray?
    - If I use 1080/30i, will it have the more "live/in-person" look like the original, when compared to 1080/24p?

    I start to do some more reading and see that there is "AVCHD Disc" If I understand correctly, I can burn an "AVCHD Disc" to a BD-R and have it be 1080/60p. Is that correct? There are also additional question on an "AVCHD Disc"

    - Can an AVCHD Disc have a menu system like a Blu-ray disc?
    - How concerned do I need to be with compatibility of an AVCHD disc in general?
    - How concerned do I need to be with compatibility of an AVCHD disc that has 1080/60p on it? Would 1080/30p be any more compatible?

    In the case of compatibility, I'm talking about with playback devices other than a computer. This will primarily be PlayStation 3/4, XBone One, and off-the-shelf Blu-ray plays of varying ages.

    Last portion of this process has been exploring options for any required transcoding as well as authoring. Lots of options came out but I see TMPGEnc is often frequently recommended. In my situation, I find Encore CS6 to be fine for the actual DVD/Blu-ray menu creation process, but most people seem to indicate that the Mainconcept codec that is included and used by Adobe Media Encoder for transcoding isn't the greatest and that TMPGEnc would be better.

    So I downloaded a trial of TVMW5 and TAW5 to play around. TAW5 is certainly easier than Encore CS6 for menu creation, but I don't necessarily feel I would need to switch to it just for menu purposes. However TAW5 gave options for AVCHD Progressive (I assume this is an AVCHD Disc) as well as Blu-ray BDMV disc, where Encore CS6 only offers BDMV. So, TAW5 would give me that AVCHD Disc option, correct? Or is there some way to do this in Encore CS6?

    I then started to play with TVMW5 and got confused when I saw options for MPEG-2 Blu-ray and MPEG-4 AVC Blu-ray. What is the point/why would you transcode to MPEG-2 Blu-ray instead of MPEG-4 AVC Blu-ray?

    As far as TMPGEnc vs Mainconcept, I haven't been able to do too many tests. So far I've only done side-by-side comparisons for MPEG-2 DVD where I am encoding to fit roughly 1.5 hrs of the original 1080/60p content on a single-layer DVD-R. I find the transcode created by TVM5 to be MUCH better than the transcode created by Adobe Media Encoder. This alone seems like good reason to invest in TVMW5. I have not done any side-by-side of transcodes for Blu-ray however. Would I expect TMPGenc to be superior to Mainconcept here as well?

    When it's all said and done, my goal is to take my 1080/60p files and get them burned to DVD-R and BD-R in the most compatible format, with the best quality and with the look matching that "live" look as opposed to "cinema" look. I don't know if that complete mix is possible, and am hoping someone can set me straight.
    Last edited by HDClown; 31st Aug 2014 at 13:15.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    For "live look", you'll want 30i, not 30p nor 24p. Both BD and DVD support 30i (though in actuality it is 29.97i, but that should be ok/better for your source).

    Avchd has v1 and v2 specs. 60p is only supported with v2 spec.

    Also, IIWY, whenever possible I would encode separately ahead of time (x264 for H264 on BD, HCENC or TMPGENC for MPEG2 on DVD), and then authoring without transcoding. This of course requires that you've encoded to strict standards compliance.


    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 31st Aug 2014 at 15:33.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2010
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've seen people mention that TMPGEnc should adhere to standards compliance, so that should be a safe bet?

    If I load one of my files into TMPGenc Video Mastering Works 5 and choose "Blu-ray Standard MPEG File" with BDMV MPEG-4 AVC Format type, it defaults to 1080/29.97i. There is an option to change display mode to "Progressive (2:2 pulldown)" Would I want to choose that option for any reason? Would that be considered in adhere with the standards?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Most of the top/main encoding apps (Tmpgenc, Mainconcept, Cinemacraft, etc) can be set to be compliant or not, depending upon your choices, but there should already be a "BD" and/or "DVD" preset, and those OUGHT to be compliant (of course, YMMV with enforcement strictness in Authoring apps and/or Burning/Replication). To state it shortly, TMPGEnc is not the MOST compliant encoder, but you shouldn't have any trouble with a preset. All the best encoders have their quality pros & cons, depending on setting & content & expectation.

    Your material shouldn't be using 2:2 pulldown! That was meant for 24p sourced stuff that was sped up and flags added to enable it to play as 25i (PAL). You live in the US, so should be using NTSC flavors.

    To answer some more of your previous post:
    AVCHD has simple menuing capability. Not nearly as robust or complex as BD, though probably adequate for your needs.
    If you make a title BD-compliant, it ought to be AVCHD v.1-compliant, except in the streamcount, codec & bitrate areas (not counting ancillary features).
    If you make a title AVCHD v.1-compliant, it CAN be BD-compliant (on BD media specifically), except of course its directory structure.
    Some internal packet headers ARE different between the 2, so it makes sense to demux + remux/re-author, regardless.
    AVCHD v.2-compliant titles are NOT compliant with BD.

    More devices are BD (disc) compatible than are AVCHD (disc) compatible, but there are also lots of devices that are AVCHD-compatible in other forms than disc (which BD doesn't officially allow).

    *********

    BTW, have you considered converting your 1080p60 to 720p60? That IS BD compliant.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Tennessee, US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by HDClown View Post
    I've seen people mention that TMPGEnc should adhere to standards compliance, so that should be a safe bet?

    If I load one of my files into TMPGenc Video Mastering Works 5 and choose "Blu-ray Standard MPEG File" with BDMV MPEG-4 AVC Format type, it defaults to 1080/29.97i. There is an option to change display mode to "Progressive (2:2 pulldown)" Would I want to choose that option for any reason? Would that be considered in adhere with the standards?
    29.976 interlaced is an accepted BluRay standard for 1920x1080 and 1440x1080. 60p is not. The established standards are listed in several tables along with max bitrates and GOP limits, here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154533. Of course, you can always deviate from the prescribed methods and take your chances.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2010
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks for that link Lmotlow, that's much quicker to reference then other things I've come across.

    Let me just ask a general question here in terms of interlaced vs. progressive. I've always thought that interlaced = bad and progressive = good, but does it really matter that much? If all playback is done on a TV or on a computer with deinterlacing enabled, is it really noticeable, and worth worrying about?

    If I want a more live look vs. a cinema look I need to to use 1080/29.970i or go down to 720/59.940p if I want progressive.

    Is there any generalization about what is "better" here, or is it really going to be a "encode some video and choose what you like" situation? Do I need to consider different playback devices possibly making the video look very different? For ease of use, I do all playback testing on my PC itself, although I can fairly easily do playback on my TV (via XBMC) without having to actually burn a disc.

    Also, if I decide I want something 1080p, should I use 23.976p or 24p?
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by HDClown View Post
    Thanks for that link Lmotlow, that's much quicker to reference then other things I've come across.
    That's fine, but I usually prefer to refer directly to the source/authority on such subjects, even if they're more exhaustive & obtuse.
    Let me just ask a general question here in terms of interlaced vs. progressive. I've always thought that interlaced = bad and progressive = good, but does it really matter that much? If all playback is done on a TV or on a computer with deinterlacing enabled, is it really noticeable, and worth worrying about?
    Noticeable? - Probably. Worth worrying about like many here seem to do? - NO. It's worth dealing with when you are assured that the default remaining deinterlace chain is suspect in its quality (such as like what can happen on Youtube).
    If I want a more live look vs. a cinema look I need to to use 1080/29.970i or go down to 720/59.940p if I want progressive.
    Not a bad way of looking at it.
    Is there any generalization about what is "better" here, or is it really going to be a "encode some video and choose what you like" situation? Do I need to consider different playback devices possibly making the video look very different? For ease of use, I do all playback testing on my PC itself, although I can fairly easily do playback on my TV (via XBMC) without having to actually burn a disc.
    Not sure I get what you're asking. Quality is often subjective and is influenced by an array of factors, including personal taste/acumen and subject matter complexity. There are rules of thumb based on technical parameters...
    One should certainly consider all devices your stuff is going to likely be played on and cover as many contingencies as you can (reasonably).
    Also, if I decide I want something 1080p, should I use 23.976p or 24p?
    As your stuff started of in NTSC-land and is 59.94, your stuff ought to be 23.976, not true 24p. True 24p is mainly destined for ACTUAL Cinema display.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2010
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    My camcorder has a maximum bitrate of 28Mbps VBR with the 1080/60p recordings I have, although Mediainfo shows the maximum bit rate as 26Mbps.

    When I'm encoding for Blu-ray with VBR, TMPGEnc defaults to a maximum bitrate of 35Mbps and I see that to be within spec, the maximum bitrate is 40Mbps for L4.1 (which I am using). Is there some kind of rule of thumb or calculator I can use to determine best max bitrate?

    If the source video can't be more than 28Mbps, would it make sense to set the max bitrate of 28Mbps?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Set the max bitrate to fit within the constraints:
    1. BD Max
    2. Disc space
    3. Quality needs

    If you are Re-encoding (to a lossy format), you are losing quality. End of story. How much, depends on many factors (including bitrate). You might luck out by using the identical bitrate, but then you might not.

    Example: let's say your original HD image would have been 100% quality. As stored (compressed) on your camera, let's say it is 67%. You can now NEVER GO ABOVE that 67%. If your re-encode re-utilizes very much of the compression efficiencies of the first round of compression, it might give you, say, 94% quality at 28Mbps. So 67% * 94% = ~63%. Is this good enough? You won't know without looking at it and judging for yourself. But what if you re-compressed your camera file instead at 40Mbps? That might give you 97.5% quality. So now your quality is at ~65.3%. Yes, it's better than re-compressing at 28Mbps. It's still worse than using the original compressed file, and of course much worse than the original real-life image or image at the sensor.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Jan 2010
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Did some side-by-side viewing tests. I found the 1080/24p to look pretty poor. It just seemed offed entirely and not right for the actual environment/footage itself. The 1080/30i looked pretty good but not as fluid as the 720/60p. The 720/60p was just as fluid as the original.

    I couldn't really see an overall visual difference in the original 1080/60p source file and the Blu-ray compatible 720/60p. I attribute this largely to the environment was in doors with not so great lighting so the overall image quality is lower than the camcorder is capable of. I imagine that if I took some outdoor footage in bright daylight and then viewed an original 1080/60p next to a 720/60p transcode that I would be able to see some differences in certain areas.

    But, as it stands with this particular footage, I like the 720/60p transcode the best, so I'm going to go with that.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2015
    Location: us, so-cal
    Search Comp PM
    Do you know the difference between 720p and 1080p for the same frame rate? If you said pixels, You're right!
    720 is just a downscaled version of 1080. By dropping to 1080 you have roughly the same image, just scaled down. The aspect ratio both highbywide and diagonal is exactly the same (and I do mean exactly the same). When displaying on a 1080 screen with up conversion, it won't look perfectly like it's 1080 original, but it will be very close, as the interpolation algorithm used to shrink it is the same (just reversed) used to blow it back up. When playing 720 on a larger tv, you may notice subtle detail differences, mainly in the motion detail, but only if you are paying really close attention to it. Perceptually, they look almost exactly alike. For this reason, Blu-ray standards don't support the 1080 standard in progressive modes (except of course 24p), it would be too much data rate, and a duplication of formats (in their perspective, useless). 24p is a standard celluloid film setting, which is what celluloid film used to match, and it was included to allow older films to be converted straight to bluray with the maximum pixel depth for quality assurance. You guessed it, they covered their butt, and wanted to make the new technology something everybody could get on board with, and make a little extra $$ off of old titles along the way and they built an empire on it.
    On windows, you can use x264 encoding to output a direct .264 raw video file-stream, which is supported in most authoring programs as a do not transcode video, and will output just fine to a blu-ray, using the fake-interlace. However, you still need to conform to a max of 40mbps for standard bluray if you use the 4.1 standard. Some author programs can handle it as PsF, progressive separated fields, and will output the blu-ray just fine. However, some, like adobe encore, will balk at the formatting when you go to build the project into a folder or a disc. I suggest finding\using one that will allow it. Alternatively, you could use a newer bluray profile, and set it for 5.1 or the like. These profiles allow 30p and 60p for 1080 video. Just be prepared to use a buttload of space (you'll need bdxl; not a venerial disease)
    Strictly speaking, the buffer for bluray video is changing in players. As long as they still support the older size buffers, they can put blu-ray on the box. However, newer buffers are handling high bit rates, with larger sized videos, and don't conform to bluray "legal" sizing. The reason they've allowed it is because the amount of space on bluray maxes out at 128gb now. The new bdxl standard can tolerate 50-60mbps reads and can even hold streams that can be accessed simultaneously for picture in picture functions with a multitude of possibilities (including alternate angles). These newer standards do allow 30p, 60p and other progressive formats for playback, but you need to specify the correct settings with your encoder.
    Right now, hollyweird are the only ones with the $$ to afford the newer encoders that do the heavy lifting. Adobe, AVID and others are highly attached to the "Legal" blu-ray standard because they couldn't handle the help requests of encoding the newer formats.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member newpball's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2014
    Location: Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by htdavis View Post
    Do you know the difference between 720p and 1080p for the same frame rate? If you said pixels, You're right!
    720 is just a downscaled version of 1080. By dropping to 1080 you have roughly the same image, just scaled down. The aspect ratio both highbywide and diagonal is exactly the same (and I do mean exactly the same). When displaying on a 1080 screen with up conversion, it won't look perfectly like it's 1080 original, but it will be very close, as the interpolation algorithm used to shrink it is the same (just reversed) used to blow it back up.
    Unbelievable nonsense!

    A video will not be very close if you cut the resolution in half.

    And no, optimum algorithms to upscale and downscale are not necessarily identical, most of the time they are not.

    Originally Posted by htdavis View Post
    When playing 720 on a larger tv, you may notice subtle detail differences, mainly in the motion detail, but only if you are paying really close attention to it. Perceptually, they look almost exactly alike. For this reason, Blu-ray standards don't support the 1080 standard in progressive modes (except of course 24p), it would be too much data rate
    Seriously?

    1080i and 1080p have exactly the same data rate.

    I smell a stuffy old engineer attitude!

    "4K? We don't need no stinkin' 4K!"
    Quote Quote  
  13. There is not only one solution to deliver BDMV from your 60p source so it usually slides into this what newpball does in every thread ...

    So just another opinion,
    If you insist to lay proper BDMV structure on BD I'd go that 720p60 way, because to make it interlaced even if the original was meant to be 60p frame rate progressive is not right, kind of, just opinion, and nobody will go back to you that picture is fuzzy or something anyway ... just think of it as a delivery thing to distribute video to others.

    Keep proper 1080p60, as well, exporting original clip parameters, and store it, whatever storage and back it up, so you might end up storing original clips and those edited 1080p60 movies, and perhaps those 720p60 BD's
    Last edited by _Al_; 14th Feb 2015 at 10:57.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Quite wrong there. Uncompressed 1080i is half the rate of 1080p. Compressed, you can make the bitrate what you want, but in order to have equivalent visual quality you would have to have the 1080p version be at least ~1.5x the 1080i version. Maybe you need a refresher course.
    Also, 720p on a 720 or 768 sized TV would look just as good if not better than 1080p (because of no rescaling vs rescaling), which just shows that you have to take into account all factors (like an engineer would).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member newpball's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2014
    Location: Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Quite wrong there. Uncompressed 1080i is half the rate of 1080p.
    1080p at 30 frames per second is half of 1080i at 60 fields (half frames) per second?

    I suppose I urgently need math classes!

    And yes if you do not have a device that can show 1080 but only 720 then down scaling to 720 is not an issue. What an ingenious observation!

    Next we are going to hear that you could really downscale 1080 to SD video because after all it won't make a difference on an SD television.

    Last edited by newpball; 14th Feb 2015 at 14:55.
    "4K? We don't need no stinkin' 4K!"
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    1080p30 is equivalent bandwidth burden to 1080i30, which is half of 1080p60. Maybe you were confused- the OP was considering whether or not to retain the AVCHD cam's original 1080p60 format when attempting BD compliance.

    Yes, IF the OP was working with an SD monitor, that would still be a valid argument, even though we all know you were trying to be facetious. However the reality is that there are still plenty of HDTVs that are not fully 1080p capable, and on those sets a 720 signal looks perfectly decent. It also still looks decent (even compared to 1080p) when shown on a smaller screen or at a greater distance (where the resolving power of the eye cannot differentiate).

    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 14th Feb 2015 at 13:45.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member newpball's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2014
    Location: Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    ...we all know you were trying to be facetious.
    I am not, I am responding to two idiotic claims.

    Someone makes a claim that 1080p and 720p is almost the same because of upconversion.

    Do you agree with that?

    Then that same person makes the claim that "Blu-ray standards don't support the 1080 standard in progressive modes (except of course 24p), it would be too much data rate".

    Do you agree with that?

    So let me ask you Cornucopia, do you agree that 1080p and 720p is almost the same and do you agree that the Blu-ray standard does not include 1080/30p because of too much data rate?

    Yes or no?

    "4K? We don't need no stinkin' 4K!"
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    They are not "idiotic claims", they're just incomplete and/or based on a misunderstanding.

    A 720p60 upconverted to 1080p60 on a 1080p60 screen vs. a native 1080p60 with no upconversion on that same screen would clearly not look as good (IOW, the 720p60 is worse). However, the 720p60 upconverted to 768 screen vs. a 1080p60 downconverted to 768 screen MIGHT look nearly the same (what I described earlier). Also, a 720p60 upconverted to 1080p60 on a 1080p60 screen vs. a native 1080p30 frame-duplicated to a 1080p60 screen might have pros & cons on each side, since the framerate of the 720p60 would clearly be better but the framesize would clearly be worse, thus it depends on your sensitivities, needs & priorities.

    Also, BD standards clearly support for HD: 1080p24 (/23.976), 1080p, 1080i30(/29.97), 1080i25, and 720p24(/23.976), 720p50, 720p60(/59.94). It doesn't officially support 1080p30(/29.97) or 1080p25, but because of PsF it can be fudged into compliance anyway. And the 1080i30 and 1080p30 are equivalent bandwidth burden (as I already stated). But BD does NOT support 1080p60(/59.94) nor 1080p50 - because of too much data rate.

    From what I've been reading from the start, and from what I understand of the context of htdavis' post, it was in reference NOT to 720p60 vs. 1080p30 (as you seem to be suggesting), but 720p60 vs. 1080p60. And in that context, of course the 1080p60 is better quality, but also "too high a bandwidth" requirement for the BD spec. Which is why BD doesn't support it. Yet, you seem to conflate 1080p30 with 1080p60 and flip/flop swapping them at will to suit your argument.

    Side Note: it is quite likely that the UltraHD revision to the BD spec will allow 1080p60, though possibly only on the "UltraHD" discs (so they wouldn't be backwards compatible with older players). Plus, it's likely that ANY features of the UltraHD spec will utilize ONLY the HEVC codec (or the 3D/MVC version of that codec, once it becomes finalized).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member newpball's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2014
    Location: Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by HDClown View Post
    As far as TMPGEnc vs Mainconcept, I haven't been able to do too many tests. So far I've only done side-by-side comparisons for MPEG-2 DVD where I am encoding to fit roughly 1.5 hrs of the original 1080/60p content on a single-layer DVD-R. I find the transcode created by TVM5 to be MUCH better than the transcode created by Adobe Media Encoder. This alone seems like good reason to invest in TVMW5. I have not done any side-by-side of transcodes for Blu-ray however. Would I expect TMPGenc to be superior to Mainconcept here as well?

    When it's all said and done, my goal is to take my 1080/60p files and get them burned to DVD-R and BD-R in the most compatible format, with the best quality and with the look matching that "live" look as opposed to "cinema" look. I don't know if that complete mix is possible, and am hoping someone can set me straight.
    It seems you are big on standards, so beware that some blu-ray players may not even play standard unencrypted blu-ray disks and also if your disk is commercial you would have to use an encoder that MPEG LA likes. I doubt that TMPGenc is in that category, but I would love to be corrected.

    "4K? We don't need no stinkin' 4K!"
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    That is not true. All BD/DVD players have no problem with unencrypted discs. Also, TMPGEnc has never had a single problem (when settings adjusted correctly) with compliance in a player, and I have used it since 2001.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member newpball's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2014
    Location: Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    That is not true. All BD/DVD players have no problem with unencrypted discs.
    Fully compliant players are not supposed to accept non AACS encrypted disks.


    Yes, those wonderful standards some people seem to love!



    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Also, TMPGEnc has never had a single problem (when settings adjusted correctly) with compliance in a player, and I have used it since 2001.
    The problem is not technical, it is royalties, MPEG LA is all about royalties.

    Last edited by newpball; 14th Feb 2015 at 15:40.
    "4K? We don't need no stinkin' 4K!"
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    That is not true. All BD/DVD players have no problem with unencrypted discs.
    Fully compliant players are not supposed to accept non AACS encrypted disks.


    Yes, those wonderful standards some people seem to love!



    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Also, TMPGEnc has never had a single problem (when settings adjusted correctly) with compliance in a player, and I have used it since 2001.
    The problem is not technical, it is royalties, MPEG LA is all about royalties.

    You are mistaken on both counts.

    Just checked the specs: all REPLICATED discs must use AACS, but not DUPLICATED/BURNED. And TMPGEnc pays MPEG LA royalties, so there would be no reason for them to disavow them. Regardless, even titles encoded with HCEnc or similar opensource codecs that BYPASS MPEG LA can be burned AND played without problem on certified BD players.

    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 14th Feb 2015 at 21:51.
    Quote Quote