Avi To DVD have What do you think

[dutcher]

I have a movie in Avi format just want to know if i comvert it to DVD what that wil do whith the quality.Or wil it be the same quality as the Avi movie.Or wil it be realy high end DVD quality...

Let me know thks

[daamon]

Hi dutcher,

Depends on the quality of the source (i.e. your AVI). There's loads of guides and "How To's" to the left on conversion, encoding etc.

Have a good read and come back when you get stuck.

[dutcher]

I know how to convert and stuf i only want to know it it wil be a DVD quality movie or just A DVD with Avi quality thats all

Thks

[bugster]

Garbage in = garbage out.

You can't improve on the source.

[daamon]

@ dutcher,

Use GSpot and / or AVICodec to get details of your AVI, and post those. Someone may then be able to give you better info on what tools / settings combination to use to get good quality based on your original.

It'd also be helpful if you stated where you got the AVI from - transferred from a DV cam, VHS videos etc.

AVI isn't a specific format - it's more of a container for audio and video that can be in a number of formats (DV, Divx, Xvid etc.).

[mmasw]

Garbage in = garbage out.

You can't improve on the source.

Is this in the Sweeping Generalizations Handbook somewhere or what?

People keep saying this as if all aspects of "video quality" were objective and empirically proven.

I've had video before that was too dark.....or too saturated with color....or too red.....too little gamma.....in need of sharpening.....more contrast....etc etc. And by applying various filters, in a very real sense I did "improve" upon the source.

Certainly, aspects of quality related to bitrate are objective, but there are many other subjective components as well, making a statement such as yours seem rather useless.

If what you said was true, why would encoding applications have filters?

[bugster]

Garbage in = garbage out.

You can't improve on the source.

Is this in the Sweeping Generalizations Handbook somewhere or what?

People keep saying this as if all aspects of "video quality" were objective and empirically proven.

I've had video before that was too dark.....or too saturated with color....or too red.....too little gamma.....in need of sharpening.....more contrast....etc etc. And by applying various filters, in a very real sense I did "improve" upon the source.

Certainly, aspects of quality related to bitrate are objective, but there are many other subjective components as well, making a statement such as yours seem rather useless.

If what you said was true, why would encoding applications have filters?

Yes it is a Sweeping Generalizations, but it also holds very true.

It is true you can apply filters and various techniques to video to 'change' the user perception of the image a little, but there is no way that you can take a crap noisy VHS transfer and make it look like top quality film. Sure you hide some of the noise and change some of the colour saturation levels or something such that you feel it is better than the source, but its still garbage.

If you want to explain to dutcher (the author of this thread) how to take a 2 hour 700Mb divx file (or any other highly compressed avi) and make it look as good as

realy high end DVD

then please go ahead. I will read your posts with interest.

[mmasw]

quote="bugster"]

Garbage in = garbage out.

You can't improve on the source.

Yes it is a Sweeping Generalizations, but it also holds very true.

It is true you can apply filters and various techniques to video to 'change' the user perception of the image a little, but there is no way that you can take a crap noisy VHS transfer and make it look like top quality film. Sure you hide some of the noise and change some of the colour saturation levels or something such that you feel it is better than the source, but its still garbage.

If you want to explain to dutcher (the author of this thread) how to take a 2 hour 700Mb divx file (or any other highly compressed avi) and make it look as good as

realy high end DVD

then please go ahead. I will read your posts with interest.

OK, so you agree that it was a sweeping generalization

It also seems that you're agreeing that a judicious use of filters CAN improve the video....contary to your generalization. "user perception" is a little too much of rhetorical dodge however, and I won't let it pass. If I change the brightness/contrast of a specific video, I have changed the actual video, notwithstanding whatever a user may perceive. That's a fact.

you said "there is no way that you can take a crap noisy VHS transfer and make it look like top quality film"......I'm not sure why you would say this. I certainly did not contend the inverse, and Dutcher never specified the source of his AVI or it's properties. And because of that, your persistent use of the term "garbage" seems rather presumptous.

And to continue your presumtption: " 2 hour 700Mb divx file (or any other highly compressed avi) "......now where was it that Dutcher listed these specifications? I must have missed it.....maybe his AVI is a 20GB HuffYuv file, or a DV file.

As to me explaining how your ludicrous conversion could be done....why should I, it's your example after all. Not once did I contend anything like that was possible.

Let me ask one thing.....is it still true you will read my posts with interest?

[daamon]

@mmasw,

I hope you feel better now... And I'm sure Dutcher (the original poster - remember him/her?) is intrigued with your tenacity to clarify a point.

However, looking at the bigger picture, the hijacking of his/her topic to engage in a war of words with bugster hasn't totally answered his/her question, has it? Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is why we choose to post to their topic in the first place. Granted, Dutcher could do with providing a little more info, but if you're new to this game you learn that as you go along.

By all means discuss (heated or otherwise) the ins and outs of "GIGO" to your heart's content - but choose the right forum, and in your own topic (or someone else's who's invited comment / discussion).

Please don't come back with the "who do you think you are?" line - No, I don't think I'm a moderator or anything like that. I've learnt a hell of a lot from this site and, admittedly, have enjoyed reading (for interest and entertainment) many exchanges of words and views, but not when they were in the middle of other people's posts and loosely related the topic - it's just an unneccessary distraction and interference, and it's plain rude to the original poster and those who are trying to help him/her.

Now, Dutcher, when you provide details of your source AVI I'm sure someone will chip in and be able to help with your query.

[bugster]

Let me ask one thing.....is it still true you will read my posts with interest?

I will read your posts with interest when you add something useful to dutcher's original question. This is his/her thread after all. Until then, just shut up.

@dutcher, I hope you have found the information you wanted.
I still stand by my response to your original question.

[mmasw]

Let me ask one thing.....is it still true you will read my posts with interest?

I will read your posts with interest when you add something useful to dutcher's original question. This is his/her thread after all. Until then, just shut up.

@dutcher, I hope you have found the information you wanted.
I still stand by my response to your original question.

Dutcher's original question was about the conversion of an AVI file of unspecified properties to DVD. Your "garbage in garbage out" statement was in my view an overused cliche that needed some clarification for Dutcher about the use of filters.

And I "stand my" my basic contention that some aspects of video quality are subjective in nature. That's all my original response said.....besides a gentle dig at you about sweeping generalizations that apparently got under your skin.....sorry for that.

As to his original question, I think my replies were as responsive as yours. Obviously, you don't agree....fine. If Dutcher was to actually convert his AVI file to DVD, the use of filters may be relevant....ergo I broached the subject.

As to me "shutting up".....well, you're a moderator here so I assume you can ensure that I do "shut up". I guess shut up is a more 'moderate' response then others you could have made.

[mmasw]

@mmasw,

I hope you feel better now... And I'm sure Dutcher (the original poster - remember him/her?) is intrigued with your tenacity to clarify a point.

However, looking at the bigger picture, the hijacking of his/her topic to engage in a war of words with bugster hasn't totally answered his/her question, has it? Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is why we choose to post to their topic in the first place. Granted, Dutcher could do with providing a little more info, but if you're new to this game you learn that as you go along.

By all means discuss (heated or otherwise) the ins and outs of "GIGO" to your heart's content - but choose the right forum, and in your own topic (or someone else's who's invited comment / discussion).

Please don't come back with the "who do you think you are?" line - No, I don't think I'm a moderator or anything like that. I've learnt a hell of a lot from this site and, admittedly, have enjoyed reading (for interest and entertainment) many exchanges of words and views, but not when they were in the middle of other people's posts and loosely related the topic - it's just an unneccessary distraction and interference, and it's plain rude to the original poster and those who are trying to help him/her.

Now, Dutcher, when you provide details of your source AVI I'm sure someone will chip in and be able to help with your query.

LOL....for someone so concerned about the integrity of Dutcher's Thread (I capatalize because it seems you give it institutional status), you certainly were 'longwinded' in lecturing me about thread propriety. I would point out that in giving me this lecture, you break just about every 'rule' you admonish me for .

I originally and simply brought up the subject of filters, which I thought was relevant if Dutcher was to convert his AVI to DVD.

Perhaps it was a needless tangent. And that would be terrible because after all, that would make this the very first thread here that ever deviated from the originating post. Oh the shame.

Get a grip. One of the things that make this website great are all the free-flowing 'conversations' about the almost endless technical issues. I'm not the first person to offer an opinion here.

So I offered one and you found it rude. You offered this one and I find it pompous.

Seems a lot like like normal conversation.

Look....it was never my intention to ruffle British feathers. If I did, I apologize to both Bugster and you.

But let's drop the pretense that each thread becomes tightly and absolutely confined to replies only relevant to the originating post. Almost no thread here adheres to that 'rule". And just as 'video quality' has some subjective components, 'relevancy' can be rather subjective as well.

[Gazorgan]

As to the original question.

The DVD product will generally be as good as the source. 'Slightly Degraded' is the correct term. Every conversion causes a loss. Every filter applied causes a degradation in some other aspect.

General rules of thumb for a 2 hour movie, with a MPEG4 AVI:
700 MB AVI = VCD quality
1400 MB AVI = SVCD/CVD quality
2100 MB AVI = DVD Quality

This is what you can expect when converting an AVI to DVD. This is not a generalization, but based on practically experience as well as objective evidence (bitrates/resolutionbs). Some 1400 MB movies can be near DVD quality (close enough you can't tell on smaller TV's).

[macleod]

I can only offer generalizations based on the initial post, but here goes:

Generally speaking the AVI (or any conversion from one format to another) will never look equal to the original source. Each time you convert something, you lose something.

DVD comes in a few formats, 720x480,704x480, and 352x480. To offer unsolicited advice to the next question, what I would recommend is to see what resolution AND bitrate your avi was captured at. You do not want to upsample the resolution. Here are some guidelines:

avi is:
720x<anything> = leave 720x480
Less than 720x<anything> = convert to 352x480
Less than 352x<anything> = convert to 352x240

Along with filters and some other stuff (which you'll need to do some research on), you can change the aspect ratio to preserve the dvd settings, however, keep it in dvd spec. I'll assume that you are using tmpgenc, There is an option in the setup to make it XXX x XXX and preserve aspect ratio. I have not done this in awhile, but there is a guide that references the concept with low rez divx files 320x240.

By doing the above, you will minimize the problems with upsampling to meet a dvd spec.

[bugster]

@Gazorgan & macleod, you obviously didn't read mmasw's posts detailing the techniques he uses to make his final product better than the source

[mmasw]

@Gazorgan & macleod, you obviously didn't read mmasw's posts detailing the techniques he uses to make his final product better than the source

It doesn't bother me that you dispute what I say. However, I never said what you just claimed I said.

putting a smiley face behind a factual error doesn't make it any less of an error.

since you are a moderator, perhaps you should consider moderating the honesty of your argument.

[bugster]

@Gazorgan & macleod, you obviously didn't read mmasw's posts detailing the techniques he uses to make his final product better than the source

It doesn't bother me that you dispute what I say. However, I never said what you just claimed I said.

putting a smiley face behind a factual error doesn't make it any less of an error.

since you are a moderator, perhaps you should consider moderating the honesty of your argument.

I've had video before that was too dark.....or too saturated with color....or too red.....too little gamma.....in need of sharpening.....more contrast....etc etc. And by applying various filters, in a very real sense I did "improve" upon the source.

You should read your own posts a bit more thoroughly.

The only factual error is that you never actually explained how you achieved your improvement, only claimed it

[mmasw]

[quote="bugster"][quote="mmasw"]

I've had video before that was too dark.....or too saturated with color....or too red.....too little gamma.....in need of sharpening.....more contrast....etc etc. And by applying various filters, in a very real sense I did "improve" upon the source.

You should read your own posts a bit more thoroughly.

The only factual error is that you never actually explained how you achieved your improvement, only claimed it

ok.....point taken

for example:

source video (too dark) > TMPGEnc + Filters (simple color correction>brightness, contrast, gamma adjustment)(sharpen edge)(maybe some noise reduction) = "improve"

you'll notice that in my 1st post I did wrap improve in quotations, qualifying it. I was well aware that the process of encoding would by nature slightly degrade those apects of video quality you were referring to. But in some cases, the final product of an encode + filtering can enhance (improve) the viewability of video, most notably when the source video has definite flaws in it's aspect.

I always stipulated I was discussing subjective factors, but I 'stand by" the assertion that subjective factors are an integral component of video conversion for anyone doing the conversion.

Look, I said it before and I'll say it again....if I pissed you off by being a little too sarcatic or abrasive, I apologize. It wasn't my intention( well, maybe a little). I may have spent too much time engaged in discussions on usenet. Diplomatic discussion is often a foreign concept there. If you want some real abrasive behaviour....go the atheists' newsgroup....they eat their young there.

if you don't want to go through that effort, simply mischaracterize my argument again.

[daamon]

@mmasw

you certainly were 'longwinded'

Fair comment.

One of the things that make this website great are all the free-flowing 'conversations' about the almost endless technical issues. I'm not the first person to offer an opinion here.

Totally agree, and wasn't rejecting your opinion.

...and I find it pompous.

Who? Us English? No, never.

Look, I said it before and I'll say it again....if I pissed you off by being a little too sarcatic or abrasive, I apologize. It wasn't my intention( well, maybe a little).

I think it was that which got my back up, but we all have days that could be better. I guess I could've just responded with "please word it a little nicer" rather than my "longwinded" & "pompous" dribble. Guilty as charged.

....they eat their young there.

LOL!!!

@mmasw & bugster: So, people, are we all friends again?

[Gazorgan]

Did you mention that you have to do it with the source, and not after it's already been encoded? That taking an encoded movie, and re-encoding it to improve it only 'works' in extremely narrow cases; say hypothetically speaking a very dark cam shot of a student play? The trade-off being more pixelization and more of an animated wash to the colors.

I think what Bugster was implying was that if anyone takes the average encode, and re-encodes it again with filters it won't 'be better'. Which is quite true. Only on seriously FUBAR'd POS's can you 'improve' the quality somewhat. Say, with you home DV camera shots of Bigfoot?

[mmasw]

Did you mention that you have to do it with the source, and not after it's already been encoded? That taking an encoded movie, and re-encoding it to improve it only 'works' in extremely narrow cases; say hypothetically speaking a very dark cam shot of a student play? The trade-off being more pixelization and more of an animated wash to the colors.

I think what Bugster was implying was that if anyone takes the average encode, and re-encodes it again with filters it won't 'be better'. Which is quite true. Only on seriously FUBAR'd POS's can you 'improve' the quality somewhat. Say, with you home DV camera shots of Bigfoot?

ok....I tend to agree....for the most part....but with exceptions....

1st, it wasn't what Bugster implied that I debated but rather with what he said. He said it "can't be done" in fairly absolute terms. I did not concur and thus we had a little trans-atlantic food fight.

As to your contentions, your exception level is a little too narrow but I'll give you the point there.

I will expand it a bit in the POS category. I think a lot of people have material that would fall into the POS classification, especially when compared to commercial DVD quality. However, what they have is as good as it's ever going to get. Home videos are an example; or old TV shows. You may have to wait a damn long time to record re-runs of F Troop off a satellite dish.

So, they either let the old tapes melt into the dust in the closet or try and convert.

An example: being a sports fan I have/had a lot of classic games on vhs tape. A great old game...maybe the best was from around 1980 when the San Diego Chargers played at the Miami Dolphins in the playoffs( our british friends will be a bit lost as they are confused about what 'football' is...). I didn't record it at the time.....I didn't even have a vcr....but sometime in the mid 80's espn replayed it and I recorded it then. EP mode on a tape. Probably 17 or 18 years later, I had a Snazzi Capture card and 'moved' the video to VCD. The tape was on it's death bed by then...spliced twice I think.

So the game sans commercials was about 3 hours long. It fit onto 3 VCD's. Was it a 'POS' as you say?.....you bet, but it was a precious POS.

When the possibility of moving it to DVD arrived, I got around to trying it. For a 3 hour dvd I set the bitrate at 2750Kbs and converted the MPG1 to MPG2 using TMPGEnc with several filters applied, and the result was a noticeable improvement over the VCD. It's still bad compared to even average analog standards, but it has been 'improved' (my original point), and it is in a format that will last longer then tape.

Whether it's worth the effort or not for everyone sitting on old videotape collections, I can't say. For me it was, and I did "improve' the source. Not a lot, but enough. Simply migrating from tape > dvd is an improvement at least by type of archive.

sheeeesh.....and I called the other guy long-winded

{rationalization mode off}