Dv To DvD Quality Issue

[ranabp]

Hi,
I am trying to encode a 58 minute dv type 2 avi to DvD, but i am facing issues with the quality. While, its not very bad or unacceptable, but its not as nice as the Dv. I am encoding with TMPegEnc Plus / Xpress, and have used 8000 / 9200kbps video bit rate. The Dv file when played is superior in quality than the dvd mpeg no matter if its 8K kbps or 9.2k kbps.

I was thinking Dv to DvD would be very very little quality loss, unperceptable to the eye. But i can figure it. I played the files in winDVD, but i figured that its de-Interlacer is not good. Then i tried in PowerDvD( Very Nice DEinterlacer), and i could see difference in qualty in both clips.I then tried DSCaler, famous for its Scalar Bob fiter (Definately best software de-interlacer for Windows) and i could see the quality loss.

TMPeg gave me 9200kbps as the largest bit rate setting, i used 10 bit component precision, i set the speed/quality mode to Highest with Error Correction and i did CBR encoding.

I know this quality loss would definately be spotted on tv, but still i want the best quality. Please advise me what to change in my encoding routine, so that i get best possible quality.

[BJ_M]

if this is home shot , hand held DV , often is has a LOT of movement (not being shot w/ a tripod) and a lot of noise (not shot with proper lighting - which dv is very sensitive to)

it helps to use a video image stabilizer filter or app if very jerky and it helps a lot to reduce the noise ...

a different encoder may also help

[wwjd]

Have you actually burned the video to DVD and watched on your TV? If not, that is what I would suggest you do. What you see on your computer is not what you will see on your TV.


wwjd

[ranabp]

Yeah i agree to you both on that, but my issue is not with shaking or watching it on tv.

But, i am COMPARING, both Dv and Mpeg files on Computer Monitor only. And i am using DScalar and PowerDvD to compare them both. Scenes with fast motion have the detectable quality loss ( when watched very closely ).

[wwjd]

ranabp,

I still recommend that you burn and watch it on the TV. It is not nearly the investment that you have already put into comparing it on your computer screen. DVD RWs are fairly inexpensive, heck a DVD R can easily be had for $.25 - $.50 cents a piece.

wwjd

[MpegEncoder]

I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again (we really need a DV basics sticky):

DV is 25Mbps, DVD (at most) is about 8Mbps.

So no matter WHAT you do, you're not going to get "DV" quality out of DVD mpeg-2. You're reducing the bitrate by a MINIMUM of 3:1.

Think about it.

[wwjd]

MpegEncoder is right, there will always be some loss when compressing from DV to mpeg2.

wwjd

[yg1968]

I think that the poster's question is "How do I reduce the quality loss (not, why is there a quality loss)?"

Saying that there will be a quality loss is fairly obvious. The tougher question is "how do you minimize this quality loss?".

[edDV]

Yeah i agree to you both on that, but my issue is not with shaking or watching it on tv.

But, i am COMPARING, both Dv and Mpeg files on Computer Monitor only. And i am using DScalar and PowerDvD to compare them both. Scenes with fast motion have the detectable quality loss ( when watched very closely ).

You really need to make your quality judgements on a TV monitor if your goal is TV display. Computer monitors are RGB progressive, TV sets are YUV interlace. Motion is displayed differently. That said DV is compressed 5x MPeg2 compresses much more and the major artifacts of compression show up in scenes with motion.

[racerxnet]

As has been stated, It boils down to the codec used and the encoding engine used. Procoder is an excellent choice as is the Amber encoder. I have not used others, but hear that some are as good or better, depending on ones preference. My Rex has the Sony codec, so I am stuck with using that. It does a wonderful job also.

MAK

[ranabp]

Thanks for the replies guys, i think yeah perheps its the big difference in Highest bitrates for both video types. Methinks, encoded @ 9200kbps is good enough. Anyway, whats the maximum bitrate i can have for my video, while the dvd is still compatible / mpeg2 compliant.

[racerxnet]

Your set top player will probably crap out at about 9500 for the bit rate. My REX will encode to 15,000, but the player locks up.

MAK

[bugster]

Anyway, whats the maximum bitrate i can have for my video, while the dvd is still compatible / mpeg2 compliant.

https://www.videohelp.com/dvd#tech

[State Of Mind]

Scenes with fast motion have the detectable quality loss ( when watched very closely ).

Well, of course the quality of fast scenes is going to be noticably degraded as codecs are designed to use less bitrate for scenes that you're naturally not trying to look too closely at the detail.

Cheers,
Jeremy

[jimmalenko]

I'd be interested to see the screenshots of all of the TMPGEnc Settings tabs. Who knows, maybe there's a setting or two that could be tweaked ?

[State Of Mind]

TMPGEnc is pretty much the best program to encode, but others say CinemaCraft Encoder is better. If you want to see what it looks like, then go Google it, download and install it.

[tmh]

While researching the best encoder for camcorder shot DV to DVD conversion I've seen quite a few folks here say Procoder does a slightly better job in most cases for quality of the DVD as compared to the DV footage. I'm just starting to do the comparison for myself and on fairly short, staedy clips I can't tell the dif. Next I'll try a kids ballgame or something with lots of action and see which my eyes like better.

Regarding TV vs. Computer evaluation, I wasted many hours using the computer playback to judge my DVD quality only to find out that, as others say, it was NOT the same comparison when played on my TV. Quite frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wouldn't now follow this method as it is usually as simple as : Open, insert DVD, Close, TV on, Channel select, Play, Watch. Takes all of 5 sec so why not watch on the tV. Plus, your lounge chair is more comfortable than your computer chair.

[State Of Mind]

I'm a bit confused as to why anyone wouldn't now follow this method as it is usually as simple as : Open, insert DVD, Close, TV on, Channel select, Play, Watch. Takes all of 5 sec so why not watch on the tV. Plus, your lounge chair is more comfortable than your computer chair.

Uhm, I'll clear that up for you right now. It is easier to compare on the PC because incase you're picky or did something wrong experimenting with the programs than to burn a mountainous number of DVD+Rs which can take a long time if you don't have a fast burner.

[wwjd]

State of Mind; why not use DVD+RW? I do it all the time. When it is what I want then I burn it to +R. I have been using the same +RWs for over a year now, with many many burns. I have saved myself many hours of chasing after problems that did not really exist. I have also saved myself a lot DVDs because if I had burn them according to what I saw on the computer monitor I would have been quite disappointed in the end result when displayed on my TV.

[State Of Mind]

I don't use DVD+RWs because I made one and my DVD Player wouldn't play it.

[scruge]

[quote="ranabp"]Hi,
......I was thinking Dv to DvD would be very very little quality loss, unperceptable to the eye. ...quote]


I agree, and if you find an answer let me know... I don't necessarily buy into all the noise about dv verses dvd... If you consider Hollywood can take the output of a million dollar camera which is producing frame sizes of 300k- 1mbit per, verses an average $500 dv camcorder thats producing only 100k -175k bits per frame. Seems to me the dv encoded results should look as good as the source.
Plus I don't like this notion of watching it on a tv to check the result.. I assume they don't mean HDTV.
I'd also like to think the energy I spent editing, encoding and authoring a DVD of home movies was well spent rather than something that was going to have to be done again later when technology changed.
Perhaps what is needed is an encoder that is optimized for dv rather than the general purpose encoders available now.

[takeshi]

Scruge, the difference is that Hollywood employs people whose full time job is to encode video to produce these results. I'm not saying that you can't get good quality when converting DV to MPEG2, but it takes some work and there isn't a one size fits all solution.

[trock]

Regarding TV vs. Computer evaluation, I wasted many hours using the computer playback to judge my DVD quality only to find out that, as others say, it was NOT the same comparison when played on my TV.

After wrestling with this issue for quite some time I settled on feeding my NLE timeline directly to a calibrated video monitor via Firewire so that what I see is what I get. This is especially valuable when doing color-correction or fixing black levels etc. since I don't have to spend time rendering/encoding/burning to a DVD to see what's what.

[racer-x]

You need to look more closely to your settings. There's no reason you can't get vitually indistinguishable from DV quality with a good encoder using the correct settings, I do it all the time. I've done countless side by side comparisons, not to mention hundreds of frame grab comparisons. You can get quality that is vitually indistinguishable, you just need to use the correct settings.

As for motion noise, it's in the original dv too and it also has to be encoded along with the video. If it wasn't in the original source, it wouldn't be in the Mpeg. You need to use a higher motion search and higher persition method for fast motion scenes.

I can't help you with TEMPGnc because my encoder of choice is MainConcept. I know TMPGenc is a good encoder, you just need to experiment more.

Good luck.

[jimmalenko]

I'd be interested to see the screenshots of all of the TMPGEnc Settings tabs. Who knows, maybe there's a setting or two that could be tweaked ?

Well, I said it before, so I'll say it again ... there's many very knowledgable TMPGEnc users here, so if we could get screen dumps of all the settings tabs, maybe we could find some areas that need a change of settings.

[lordsmurf]

TMPGENC is not a high quality encoder.
Easy to use, yes.
Accepts many sources, yes.
Large home user following, yes.
Great filters, yes.

Good for already-high-quality sources? No.

[jimmalenko]

TMPGENC is not a high quality encoder.
Easy to use, yes.
Accepts many sources, yes.
Large home user following, yes.
Great filters, yes.

Good for already-high-quality sources? No.

Well that statement's a bit contradictory IMHO.

An already-high-quality source should be the easiest thing for an MPEG encoder, don't you think ?

As far as encoders go, bitrate's bitrate, isn't it ? If you use a sufficient bitrate, you'll get a sufficient result.

Could you please elaborate on your opinion, LS ?

[lordsmurf]

TMPGENC muddies source colors, softens it, and can give it a "digital" or "plastic" look. Much of this is the colorspace handling, and some of mystery around some of it's settings.

Procoder is better.

CCE is okay, adds some noise in.

MainConcept softens too, but that's the only issue.

This opinion is ONLY for DV conversion, this is not some "general" opinion.

[jimmalenko]

TMPGENC muddies source colors, softens it, and can give it a "digital" or "plastic" look. Much of this is the colorspace handling, and some of mystery around some of it's settings.

Procoder is better.

CCE is okay, adds some noise in.

MainConcept softens too, but that's the only issue.

This opinion is ONLY for DV conversion, this is not some "general" opinion.

Thanks

I'll concur with you that colorspace is a concern with DV source when using TMPGEnc. Just wanted to clarify that this was not your overall opinion for all sources, that's all

[State Of Mind]

So what program do you guys think is best for DV > MPEG-2?
Keep in mind I upload with WinDV, use AviSynth, use Adobe Premiere Pro and then can framserve to TMPGEnc...
Also keep in mind that I am quality driven maniac.