Best video bitrate

[aguinsburg]

Hello,

Can someone help me with DV to DVD conversion?
I want to preserve quality and I am not sure about the best video bitrate to encode DV. I like about 90 minuts per DVD.
Can you suggest best soft for encoding?

Thanks a lot

[lenti_75]

90 min = 6000kb/s

the best soft to encode is Procoder 2

anyway. to maintain the quality, don't go below 5000, 6000 is about the lower I would use, unless the source was a vhs or some other crapy thing.

this is for a 720x480 resolution, a full dvd

[holistic]

I want to preserve quality and I am not sure about the best video bitrate to encode DV. I like about 90 minuts per DVD.
Can you suggest best soft for encoding?

90 minutes gives an approx bitrate of 6500.

There is no best software (despite what many will say) It's whats best for you.

Some popular ones : TMPGEnc , MainConcept , CCE basic , ProCoder.

TMPGEnc offers the best value for your dollar.

][

[BJ_M]

the BEST video bit rate to encode 90 minutes of DV to dvd would be 6540 average ...

the BEST software for encoding would be any of a number - how much do you want to spend ?

[nelson133]

Well, what I mostly do is make copies of tv broadcasts and copy video tapes. For that I use a resolution of 352x480 and 4000 works very well, giving much more than 90 minutes per disk. It really depends on your source, if you want the full 740x480, 4000 may still work for you, but as in everything about this hobby/business, acceptable output is strictly in the eye of the beholder. Read throuigh the forums and you will find every opinion fron "vcd is just great" to "anything less than a bit rate of 8000 is an abomination". My best advice is get some rw''s and do some testing. Sorry but the simple answers are usually wrong. Nyah Levi

[aguinsburg]

Thanks to all for such a fast answers!!!
I am afraid I wasn´t clear: I know how to calculate video bitrate so 90 minutes means 6540kb/s but, the question is wich is the best bitrate for DVD? I dont want to lose quality. Someone said no less than 7000. Is that the number? If is needed I prefer to cut the movie into 2 45 minutes DVDs.... But this is only and example. I need to start capturing all my old DV tapes and want to keep the quality in the DVDs.
Thanks again

[holistic]

I need to start capturing all my old DV tapes and want to keep the quality in the DVDs.

Huh ?! . DV is in an AVI "wrapper" . DVD when authored is in MPEG form (1 or 2).
If you want no loss from your DV tapes on a DVD then you can fit about 19 minutes of DV (avi) on a DVD (222 Mb minute) in UDF format.

][

[thor300]

I use (and recommend) CCE Basic for DV to DVD. 6000 average bitrate with multipass VBR is the lowest i use, and not much below 8000 for CBR. Below those values artifacting can occur in fast motion scenes, not so much ofcourse but visible.

[vhelp]

Did you use a tripod in your video footaging ??

If so, then you may be able to get by with 6000k for your bitrate.
But, if you did not, then you'll have to (imo) go with a bitrate
of 9000k instead, at CBR. I use CBR because the current MPEG
encoder (TMPG and CCE) just don't utilized enough brain power to
bitrate during certain panning movements. Anyways.
.
Also, don't forget to encode your MPEG-2 using Interlace. And
don't de-interlace if you're going to watch on your TV set.

I've tried using even those "single pole" tripods, but to be very
honest, they suck big-time. you gotta go with a standard 3-leg
tripod system, and one with "fluid" filled features, so that there
is no sudden jerks in your panning and turning of the CAM.

If you used a tripod, (and learned the art of fluid movements during
your panning and turning) the sky is the limit in the amount of quality
you'll get (even hollywood - ok.., but it's good to dream )
.
Note, if you were to use a tripod, you and others would not have any
such problems w/ bitrate decisions :P
The human hand and arm is just not steady enough for footaging

* I would recommend 9000k CBR in your DV-to-DVD projects.
* I would encode as Interlace. (MPEG-1 does not support Interlace)
* I would not recommend shooting footage with your CAM's built-in
... 16x9 mode feature, because low-budget cams suffer poorly in this area.

-vhelp

[SatStorm]

Which system is your DV ?
You are from Argentina, so you are PAL or NTSC? In Argentina the situation is a bit complicated regarding this from what I know (you have PAL N there, which is more NTSC than PAL....)

Anyway: IMO, the easy way is to convert your DV to mpeg 2 using procoder (NTSC) or mainconcept (PAL) with the highest possible bitrate, CBR.

The difficult way is to minor filter your DV source for the things we don't see but the encoders do see (and spent bitrate on them) and then encode to mpeg 2 with an average of 5500kb or even less (5000).
For 90 min, a minor filtered DV at ~6540kb/s mpeg 2 is simply perfect looking.

CCE/avisynth is also a harder to use solution with about the same results (if you are NTSC, the better handle of the colourspace gonna give somehow better results, If you are PAL you won't notice any visible difference regarding this if you compare it with the rest encoders...)

[aguinsburg]

You are right, we have PAL N system but I use NTSC because I have a multisystem TV and VCR and my camera is NTSC too.
My footage is home footage and I think that carry a tripod everywhere is a little bit complicated, I don´t use it as a rule.
What I learned here is to use 6000 kb/s average bitrate with VBR or 8000-9000 CBR and enconde interlace but...
1) When to use CBR or VBR?
2) What about VHS source? How much bitrate and resolution is enough for this source?

Thanks again!

[SatStorm]

NTSC VHS: Capture the higher you can, filter, resize to 352 x 480, encode to interlace mpeg 2 @ 352 x 480 with ~3000kb/s = Perfect picture.

Use CBR when you have to burn one hour per DVD. Use VBR when you wish to feet more per DVD.

CBR is always easier and faster to do

[aguinsburg]

NTSC VHS: Capture the higher you can, filter, resize to 352 x 480, encode to interlace mpeg 2 @ 352 x 480 with ~3000kb/s = Perfect picture.

Use CBR when you have to burn one hour per DVD. Use VBR when you wish to feet more per DVD.

CBR is always easier and faster to do

Sorry, but why to resize to 352 x 480? It really looks ugly... Should it be 480 x 352???

[edDV]

DVD Info to left

[edDV]

from https://www.videohelp.com/dvd
<--- over there

NTSC Video:
Up to 9.8 Mbps* (9800 kbps*) MPEG2 video
Up to 1.856 Mbps (1856 kbps) MPEG1 video
720 x 480 pixels MPEG2 (Called Full-D1)
704 x 480 pixels MPEG2
352 x 480 pixels MPEG2 (Called Half-D1, same as the CVD Standard)
352 x 240 pixels MPEG2
352 x 240 pixels MPEG1 (Same as the VCD Standard)
29,97 fps*
23,976 fps with 3:2 pulldown = 29,97 playback fps (NTSC Film, this is only supported by MPEG2 video)
16:9 Anamorphic (only supported by 720x480)

Your choices for VHS are 352x480 or 704/720x480
about double

I suggest you keep important DV format material on tape and wait for 25GB/side Blu-Ray for a 1x transfer. Like Vhelp, I do my DV to DVD backups at full 8-9Mbps CBR

[guns1inger]

If you have a good encoder, there isn't much picture quality difference between full and half-D1 for VHS source unless you use proc-amps etc. bringing it in.

[Nelson37]

I strongly disagree with previous statement. Depending on the capture card, it can make a HUGE difference capping VHS at 352x480 as opposed to 720 x 480.

To the OP - Your question about bitrate requires more info about your requirements. Are you willing to sacrifice all but PC playback and use several disks per half-hour to archive original quality? Do you want DVD player playback now? What size TV will you be using for display, both now and in the future? I also suggest you start reading some of the guides, these will round out your information in several areas.

As for what is best FOR YOU, try the different methods and LOOK AT THE RESULTS. Several times. Compare videos without knowing the production methods. PICK THE ONE THAT LOOKS BEST.

Now I don't know what you do or are familiar with, but I'tt give you an example most people seem to understand. Let's say I bought a brand-new Maserati, and hired Mario Andretti to come teach me how to drive as fast as possible. He comes over and sees I have a set of $20 bald, retread tires on the car. He walks away laughing because he knows that I cannot drive as fast as possible on the equipment I have, and I don't yet know enough to achieve this level.

I am referring to your lack of use of the tripod, and while I am certainly no Mario Andretti, I am walking away laughing. It is that important.

[bugster]

I strongly disagree with previous statement. Depending on the capture card, it can make a HUGE difference capping VHS at 352x480 as opposed to 720 x 480.

Several people should read the original post more carefully. The source is DV.

As for what is best FOR YOU, try the different methods and LOOK AT THE RESULTS. Several times. Compare videos without knowing the production methods. PICK THE ONE THAT LOOKS BEST.

That I can agree with

I am referring to your lack of use of the tripod, and while I am certainly no Mario Andretti, I am walking away laughing. It is that important.

Use of a tripod when shooting will always give much better results. But lets face facts, the vast majority of people shooting home video (myself included) don't want the bother and bulk of a tripod. In those cases, we have to make the most of what we have. Therfore 'walking away laughing' helps no-one and your comparison falls apart. aguinsburg did not state he was using a pro-sumer top end camera with out a tripod, so you can't compare it to a Maserati with bald tyres!

aguinsburg, the 1st 3 replies to your question are the amongst the most most sensible. Satstorms advice is good too. Pick one of the encoders mentioned and learn how to adjust its settings to get the best results you can. You may also want to investigate the use of filters such as de-shake for virtualdub, but don't expect miracles.

[guns1inger]

Bugster - in a later post he through in a question re: VHS and bitrates, just to confuse things.

I wasn't refering to capping, just to encoding. Unless you have high-end equipment for the whole of the capping process, then the cap, even at full-D1, will be, well, VHS.

[bugster]

Bugster - in a later post he through in a question re: VHS and bitrates, just to confuse things.

Now who should be the one reading more carefully

[Nelson37]

My reference to the Maserati was in connection to the OP's desire to maintain the best quality possible.

To express such a desire about footage filmed without a tripod is, IMO, equivalent to putting bald tires on a Maserati. Particularly comparing the dollar outlay for the camera, the "value" of family home movies, and the quality difference it makes, versus the relatively low cost of a good tripod and the minor "hassle factor".

As Vhelp stated, the absence of a tripod will require you to use a significantly higher bitrate than would otherwise be required, limiting time available on disk. Even at DVD maximums, some pixelation may be experienced. Tripod will eliminate these problems, not to mention giving a more-watchable video in its raw form. The improvement this will bring you is more significant than anything you can do in post-processing.

The shakes and jerkiness caused by hand-held video are not fixable by any known method. You can mask it somewhat, but not fix it.

If the footage is worth the effort to convert and/or archive it, then it is worth the effort to shoot from a tripod. I urge the OP to shoot some similar footage both ways, then, as earlier suggested, convert and look at it. Actually compare the unconverted video, as well. There is a simple quality issue, in addition to the conversion problems.

Edit: I read VERY carefully.

[BJ_M]

bald tires give you the best traction - and greatest contact area ...

only because of rain and snow do we use non bald tires really (and a reason to do with tracking and tramlining)

even on ice in very cold temps -- other than studs, bald tires give you better traction on ice (it depends on the temp and if the water layer can form) ..

in other words - bald tires on a Maserati may give you the highest performace -- other than the fact that a Maserati (any) are a total piece of crap in the way they are built.

[bugster]

The shakes and jerkiness caused by hand-held video are not fixable by any known method. You can mask it somewhat, but not fix it.

Agreed.

If the footage is worth the effort to convert and/or archive it, then it is worth the effort to shoot from a tripod.

But the footage has ALREADY been shot, WITHOUT a tripod. So are you saying it is NOT worth encoding/convering to DVD and preserving for the future? I think that is up to the OP to decide, don't you?

[BJ_M]

you have to use a deshaking program to fix it .. some are better than others and even v-dub has a filter for it ..

programs like shake and fusion have very good tracking for this .. and there are several other programs .

nothing beats shooting from a tripod in the first place though - as mentioned ..

[Nelson37]

I was making the assumption that he or she intends to shoot more footage in the future. Of course the OP is free to do as they see fit.

I have spoken to a number of parents who video their kids. I have shown quite a few of them the difference between video shot with, and without, using a tripod. ALL of them, without exception, saw a very significant improvement when using a tripod. Most now use a tripod almost exclusively. The few who do not, by their statements to me, not by my guess, simply do not wish to expend the time or effort or just don't care that much about quality. That is their choice, and they are free to make it.

However, when the question is asked " How can I make this better?", the first and most effective thing they can do is start using a tripod. More than any new and improved camera, more than any encoding technique or filtering, more than any study of lighting, scene composition or anything else, this is the most important thing they can do. It is also simple, easy, and inexpensive, to boot.

To say "I want the best quality, but I don't want to use a tripod" is like saying "I want a fast, expensive sports car but I want to put cheap, crappy tires on it." It may be what you wish or need to do, but I just do not understand it. I also believe that anyone who is knowledgable in that area would agree it is a bad idea.

As for the video you have now, and some things mentioned about VBR and CBR. IF set up with equivalent bitrates, and ignoring filesize, they can be theoretically equivalent. In the real world, most progs offer multi-pass encoding with VBR, and not with CBR. Outside of bitrate allocation improvements, the improved Motion Search Precision with the multi-pass encoding may be particularly beneficial in resolving the massive motion inherent in hand-held video.

[BJ_M]

if they dont want to use a tripod - they can use a GLIDECAM instead - which are not to expensive for the 2000 series ..


or build one themselves ....

http://www.glidecam.com/products.php

[aguinsburg]

To say "I want the best quality, but I don't want to use a tripod" is like saying "I want a fast, expensive sports car but I want to put cheap, crappy tires on it."

Did I say that I dont want to use a tripod? I dont remember that.
By the way, the original post was about best video bitrate for 90 minutes per DVD

I want to preserve quality and I am not sure about the best video bitrate to encode DV. I like about 90 minuts per DVD.

I really agree about look at the results. That is the technique I am using now to learn. But it is not very usefull to teach others "walking away laughing".
By the way, I own a Ferrari, not a Maseratti.

Thanks bugster for your opinion.

[BJ_M]

The kid asks his father:
- Daddy, a Ferrari is a Red Car with a Horse, isn't it?.
- That's right my son, why?.
- Because I think I've seen one that just passed us by.

[vhelp]

It would help further, if you could post a few pics of your
footage, so that we can get an idea of the problem source
situation. It may turn out that something else is the problem
to your non-quality problems.

-->

I think that 90 minutes for a home video is a little too much
being that most miniDV tapes are 60 minutes. With that in
mind, I would make my goal 60 minute video DVD's.
.
Now, with that in mind, I would gracefully raise my bitrate for
my dv footage to 9000 and experiment with CBR/bitrate values.
.
I seriouly beleive that VBR in this case (due to amature DV
film shooter (you)) would not be a good move. That would probably
be Encoder dependant, of course. But, in my experience, I
have not come close to TMPGenc or Procoder for DV footage, and
obtaining maximum quality from these transfers. By now, you do
realize that no matter how well (still) you beleive your hand
was holding the cam while footaging, and no matter how great a
given stabalizer is, in the end, it is just *no* match
for an MPEG conversion.., hence your request for suggestions.

As I suggested above, and above, I would start with a high
bitrate, and work your way down, until you feel the level of
comprise meet your needs. That's assume you still believe that
VBR is the better route. (it might be for your current goal of
90 minutes per dvd disk, though) But, if maximum quality is what
you really seek, than VBR (IMHO) is not the best way to go, given
your previous cam handling knowledge. No effense here

Consider 60 minute dvd's as your new goal. With this, you have
room to go higher in bitrate. I always use 9000 CBR bitrate,
and if I need to go higher, I can.

But, I would also like to point out one more piece of (what might
be) missing info here.. that is, weather or not, you were using
any filtering in all your previous DV endeavors, which lead you
to this discussion.
.
On this note, I would like to suggest that you *hold off* on
any filtering applications until you are sure you have nailed
down the CBR high bitrate trial n error scenerio's first.
.
But, fwiw, and IMO, DV should never be filterized. Never.
Low-light conditions are still not enough to warrant filtering.
Too many brain-washed common practice with applying filtering
with everything. This is just not necessary. Another fwiw,
I stopped using filtering in *all* my video capture and conversion
projects. I learnt that filtering in most conversion projects
actually destroys or reduces the detail necessary for a proper
video transfer project.
.
What is noise to you, is not so in DV. Those low-light scenes
that seem to produce a lot of "grain". *KEEP IT* Filtering it
out is what is killing your final end product. (Become un-
brainwashed in the things of filtering)

So, to recap what I mumbo-jumbled above ...

* stop using filtering (if you have been in the past)
* consider CBR and 9000 bitrate as your starting point
* from this point on, and no matter what, incorporate a tripod
in every footage project. (and, thank us later on for this great tip)

-vhelp 3391

[aguinsburg]

vhelp, THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!

Greetings from Argentina