DV-AVI format better? Basics on how to do it?

[troublechuter1]

Thecoalman recently posted the following, in response to someone who wants to convert 8mm tapes to DVD:

" Be wary.... a lot of mom &pop places just use a DVD Recorder. Request the footage be burned to data disc as DV-AVI or some other low compression format. If they can't do that I'd suggest finding someone else to do it. They would just be running them through a recorder, nothing wrong with that but you can do that yourself.

If you really want to create some nice DVD's you'll have to pay through the nose or do it yourself. Doing it yourself is not going to happen before christmas, not all 13. Even having someone else do it is going to happen unless you just want simple straight transfers which again can be done yourself...."

My questions are...I thought that all DVD's were burned in MPG2 format? I would like to burn higher-quality DVD's than MPG2, if possible. However, compatibility is more important as I would be transferring family videos to DVD and giving them to friends/family. Each family/friend member will very likely have a different DVD player.

1. Would DV-AVI be better quality DVD's?

2. Would they Compatible with as many DVD players as MPG2 would be?

3. How does one burn DV-AVI?

4. Can this be done at all on a set-top DVD recorder? (I have a Plextor PX-716UF and Tsunami's "Easy" Suite.)

Sorry about "repeating" this post, but I thought it might get a quicker response than burying my questions in after the original post.

Thank you!

[thecoalman]

That guys an idiot.... :P

You can't burn a compliant DVD with DV-AVI. Matter of fact you can't even play a DVD with a DV-AVI file on it even from your computer, current drives can't transfer the data fast enough. You have to transfer the file to HDD to view it. Possibly if you had a 16x drive but I haven't seen anyone say they can and haven't tested this myself.

The reason I suugest DV-AVI is that:

A. If they are giving you DV-AVI they are doing more than simply running it through a DVD Recorder. As I said you can do that yourself, much cheaper and as a bonus you have a DVD recorder when your done.

and

B. For archiving video DV-AVI or another less compressed format is preferable to MPEG. It's easier to edit and has a better quality. The quality factor may be negligible depending on how good your source is but persoanlly I archive all my footage with DV-AVI. It requires a lot of DVD's but in the end you have a very high quality source you can always return to in the future.

[garry]

Just to kick things off...

I think there might be a bit of confusion with bit rates going on here amongst the post.
Mpeg2 can look crisp & fantastic or like the remains of icecream on your windscreen.
It all depends on the bit rate (or in terms of jpeg photos, what quality setting you are using)

DV AVI in the circumstances you are mentioning can equate to maybe 15Gigabytes compares to 4Gb converted as a MPEG2 format (depending on your bitrate for saving as a MPEG2) (The mom & pop scenario might have it crunched down to say 3 GB, hence loosing a further 25% quality)

The Coalman was no doubt suggesting you get your "original" in a format (DV AVI) that wont be viewable on the standard DVD player in the loungeroom , however your PC can play it for you. (Might be 5 dvd's in total), it is a DATA disk (like your hard drive backups). (not an authored dvd for everyone)
From here ... YOU then convert it to a "nice" MPEG2 & make it compatible with the loungeroom DVD player via "DVD authoring programs".

Basically, once you have the DV AVI , which is uncompressed (or close), you then control the destiny and quality of your final creation as it then converted into the format compatible for the relatives to view in their homes around the country.

Hope this helps start you off

[Richard_G]

One other point that was briefly touched on but I think needs a bit more explanation. Mpeg is a 'final product' format. It isn't easy to edit and get decent looking results, whereas DV avi is an edirable format. In the original post they were talking about something like 17 tapes. It is unlikely that anyone is going to want all 17 tapes played continually, they'll want to edit bits out. For that reason alone, it is far better to get the transfers done to DV avi than mpeg. Edit out the rubbish and once you are happy with the result, then, and only then, encode to mpeg.

[timmus]

once you are happy with the result, then, and only then, encode to mpeg.

Would TMPGEnc be a good choice for going DV-AVI -> MPEG2?

[edDV]

A quick and easy way to cap 8mm or Hi8 tapes to DV-AVI is with a Digital8 camcorder. The higher end models will play the tape directly to IEEE-1394 for easy capture to a DV-AVI file (using a variety of programs such a WinDV, DVIO and even Windows Movie Maker*).

Be sure DV-AVI is specified, not WMV.

[ZippyP.]

Would TMPGEnc be a good choice for going DV-AVI -> MPEG2?

Yes.

[troublechuter1]

Coalman...Thanks for the reply.

I have been debating on how to archive my tapes, and, lately, have been thinking of making data DVD's as you suggested. Since most of the time, I would only be giving family and friends edited copies of an entire DVD, I'm thinking that keeping MPG2 masters around (versus AVI and/or MPG2 masters) will suffice. In my situation, I have limited space and, God willing, I'll have lots of footage to look at when I'm old and gray and in an assisted living facility.

For the most part, the editing I will be doing will be cutting embarrassing scenes--like the time when Dear Aunt Sally forgot to put the top on the blender before she made a pistachio milkshake. (I'm kidding. I don't even have an Aunt Sally!) I simply don't have the time to put into editing-in special effects, transitions, and the like. I have limited time to dedicate to the editing. I might occasionally add some titling, but, again, that will be kind of rare.

For cut-editing, I have had pretty good results with Tmpgenc. I have also played a little with VideoRedo Plus.

One of the biggest problems I have with AVI is the rendering time to MPG2. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it takes several hours (on my 2.4GHZ system) to render from AVI to MPG2. I don't *think* I'm doing anything wrong, since I've heard others who have even faster, beefier systems than I do, having similar rendering times.

And now, I'm looking into getting a capture-to-MPG2 external box, preferrably IEEE1394 based, to help cut down tremendously on rendering times.

Garry...Thanks very much for what you said about sampling rates. Can you expand on this a little more? Like, what are good rates to use, etc.?

Thanks, all, for the help.

(By the way, I had a little trouble with DVIO. I'm going to try virtualvcr next, for capturing. It allows more settings to be changed than DVIO. To be fair, I think I need to try DVIO again.)

[ZippyP.]

One of the biggest problems I have with AVI is the rendering time to MPG2. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but it takes several hours (on my 2.4GHZ system) to render from AVI to MPG2.

Depends on your settingsin TMPGEnc. 2-pass vbr takes twice as long as cbr, filtering increases the time dramatically, motion search estimate is good quality and speeds things up. There are faster programs.

[garry]

Bitrates........
Try one of the guys sites that frequent this forum

http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/capture/intro.htm#mpegbitrate

You will see the bitrate conversion chart and notice that once you get to 7000 there is "little" difference after that. Read this page !

I change bitrates all the time , depending on what I am doing & how much I want to cram on the DVD. I am usually happy with a 5500-6000 and base my final output on that. (I've even had reasonable success with 3500)(depends on what the video is of)
If it does not fit on the dvd, then I just edit my shots direct as an mpeg with videoredo and author. (bit harsh I know) Or I go back & edit properly in premiere as an avi & then convert to mpeg.

My main fare is making footage of the kids & surrounds & keep the bit rates higher and the dvd shorter (parents sleep in front of TV after an hour)

But the bit rate chart & pages will solve all your unanswered questions, and experiment madly with all programs & I dont worry about a 3 hour conversion (overnight) as long as the product is great looking to impress.

Cheers from the Outback

[troublechuter1]

Depends on your settingsin TMPGEnc. 2-pass vbr takes twice as long as cbr, filtering increases the time dramatically, motion search estimate is good quality and speeds things up. There are faster programs.[/quote]

Thanks, Zippy. Yeah, I'll look again at my settings. Being a newbie and desiring a basically high quality rendering, I may not be tweaking the settings as good as I could--I would hope that I'm erring on the side of high quality, but, again, when you're new to this stuff, it can be hard to know. (I haven't found a "sweet spot" yet.)

What are some of the faster rendering programs that you're talking about? (Which ones have you used...which do you prefer, etc.?)