WISE or what ? FROM DV to DVD..

[amichael]

Follow me .........
Some of the best DVD Players, best amplifiers, best vinyl players, etc have hardly any buttons or adjustments on them. They work on the principle that they play music or display an image exactly the way it has been encoded - no extra base, treble, contrast, colour,etc.

We currently have much software that will capture and create a DV file from a DV camera. Apparently all doing exactly the same job AND produce the same quality at this point. Bit for bit - NO quality loss.

Why then does the next stage of this conversion process get really complicated and messy.

The aim of what we are trying to do is to create a DVD that matches the quality than that of a DV film on a DV camera connected and playing onto a TV.

The only question that should be asked by these programs is to do with SIZE and percentage of DVD to be taken up.

Is my logic screwed up ?

[Heavensent]

do you like doing things that others tell you to do ALL the time ?
most likely the answer is no.

thats why its better to use a program that has a lot of options, and lets
YOU decide what is best for your needs.
the whole thing shouldnt be complicated if you use an eazy program.

its up to you.
you can decide to have much less options but grater eaze of use.
there a many programs that will let you do that.
pinnacle studio comes to mind.

but in the end everybody wants to do more with the film, so they
just go out and buy a program that will let them have more options.

by the way..
didnt you notice that all the so called "better products"
are allways trying to improve?
adding another option/butten here and there?

in the past they didnt have to do that, they had NO competition.
but today, every cheap product has options that they just cant beat.

remember the first dvd players?
whould YOU buy a brand name dvd player that doesnt play mp3 today?
i would take a mico over a toshiba anyday.
thats my opinion on "brand names".

[andkiich]

Not everyone here is doing DV. Some of us only have a standard VHS, VHS-C or similar camera.

The extra options help us overcome the limitations of the source format as far as quality goes.

If you don't need the extra options, then that just makes your life that much easier and for that I say, kudos to you. For some of us, we don't have the luxury of spending $500 - $1000 on a DV camera, and we make do with what we have. The extra options and tweeks are a godsend.

Another answer, and one much shorter is that we live in a capitalist society and where there is a need there will be someone to fill that need. Obviously, there is a need.

[amichael]

Look here. I believe ideally no one should change/set any settings to convert one file to another file format. Any program should just do it. CONVERT TO AS NEAR AS ORIGINAL QUALITY - after all you cannot get better.....can you ?

I think the technology is there, but marketing is taking precedance out there.
Don't you feel really good by experimenting with all those options and settings ?

[Vejita-sama]

You say 'convert' as if it's a simeple one step one option process. But it's not. Converting digital media from one format to another has a TON of variables. 'Best quaility' 'near quaility' those are subjective terms, they do not really mean anything.

Remember that MPEG2 video is compressed (not as much as DivX and less compressed than DV). When you compress video you need a codec. The codec has a 100+ variables. How each of these is set to get the best quaility is a matter of much debate.

If all you want to do is drag/drop DV -> DVD you can do that. But most people feel that the assumations of what's best made by these programs are 'wrong' (remember it's all subjective). They want to increase the Y, lower the C, etc. For VHS captures YUY2 or RBG? IVTC?

Also remember that for a lot of people playing around with these settings to get 'the best' quaility is a hobby. Each person things there method/s is the best (or close to) and there's never ending debate about it.

You say 'just do it' but it's not that simple. Do what? Near as original/best quaility has not yet been clearly/univerisally defined in a codec

[amichael]

hi Vejita-sama, I read what you are saying and I understand it all and to a certain point agree strangely enough, but is it a subjective view ? Again, technical knowledge is there to analyse video files and compare results , y , x, z, etc. Is it still subjective to get these results to match as close as possible to one another ?

Explain, if 2 people were converting a DV file to MPG using TMPGENC surely one person's conversion settings would produce a 'more accurate to original picture' than the other. So if one shared his settings he too should match the quality of the other - or am I missing something with a another variable ?

[holistic]

Explain, if 2 people were converting a DV file to MPG using TMPGENC surely one person's conversion settings would produce a 'more accurate to original picture' than the other. So if one shared his settings he too should match the quality of the other - or am I missing something with a another variable ?

An intresting thought but not necessarly true in the real world.

For example ::: When i was 'archiving' my VHS, I used my DV camera to 'pass thru' the analog signal to DV. RIGHT THERE someone will say ....whoa.... capture in huffyuv it is lossless. This is true but my way is easier.
Then there is the DV to mpeg2 compression. After much experimentation I decided on ~20minutes worth of MPEG2 on a 700Mb CD. This equated to an average bitrate of a little over 4500 when used with a 192 audio track.
Using TMPGEnc I set the following ::: 2000<4500>8000 for video , 192 / 48kHz stereo - crop 6 pixel off the bottom to remove tape noise -
I played with the G.O.P as well but saw no noticable difference. I used a 2pass VBR which doesn't appeal to the instant gratification generation.

The color - hues and other were of course done in my editor.

The above will of course not appeal to the 'get a movie on one CD' group.

There is no correct setting.

][