Fitting 6GB mpeg-2 onto DVD-R

[prufrockian]

I have a 6GB mpeg-2 file I captured from a VHS tape that I need to fit onto a 4.7GB DVD-R. What is the best way to do this?

[gastorgrab]

Author as it were going to a dual-layer disc then run it through DVDShrink.
.

[yoda313]

Author as it were going to a dual-layer disc then run it through DVDShrink.
.

Exactly. Done that many times.

What you should do though is use a bitrate video calculator to estimate the proper bitrate to fit a single layer disc. That way you won't need to compress it after you capture it.

[Supreme2k]

How long is the video? If it is under 2 1/2 - 3 hrs, then you can use half-D1 to shrink the size. VHS is fairly low quality to begin with.

[jman98]

Supreme2k - your answer is SO wrong, I am amazed. Going to half-D1 will NOT result in any appreciable space savings. I am amazed at how many people believe that half height D1 takes up half the space as full resolution DVD video. Do a comparision yourself and you will see that the space savings are MINIMAL - maybe 1%. The reason people use half height D1 isn't to save space, it's because the resolution of the original clip is much lower than full DVD resolution and using half-height in theory produces better video quality because it's not scaled up as much as going to full DVD resolution.

[mats.hogberg]

Supreme is correct - if you add "because 1/2 D1 can be encoded @ half the bitrate of full D1". Of course, without lowering the bitrate nothing is gained.

/Mats

[uxbridge]

jman98, does "j" stand for "junior" ?.
I suggest you read something before saying amazing things (YOU) If not a proper book at least please read the guides in this site.
Of course half-D1 will produce a smaller size, is just that maybe you do not even know that halving the resolution will halve also the need in bitrate, as it is so obvious that the other person did not even bother to say.
Then what you stated afterwards....capturing resolution, is just nonsense.
I suggest you sharpen up a little bit your skills before posting.

[Richard_G]

and while we're putting the boot in, I suppose we should also mention that half D1 isn't half height but half width (352 x 480 NTSC or 352 x 576 PAL).

[Supreme2k]

I never said that only changing the resolution to half-d1 would shrink it. There's a whole process involved, but I was making the suggestion, not holding your hand.

That is why I asked about the length. You can only squeeze so much time onto a disc before losing quality, regardless.

The reason people use half height D1 isn't to save space, it's because the resolution of the original clip is much lower than full DVD resolution and using half-height in theory produces better video quality because it's not scaled up as much as going to full DVD resolution.

Combined with a lower bitrate.

You obviously haven't researched VHS to DVD at all, otherwise you'd know the "tricks of the trade". You would also know that it isn't simple division (1 divided by 2 equals 1/2), but rather closer to complex algebra.

EDIT: I guess much of this is redundant. That's what happens when you take a , um, break inthe middle of a post.

[greymalkin]

it would help to know how long is the video you captured and at what bitrate/resolution did you capture it?

[gastorgrab]

I have a 6GB mpeg-2 file

[Supreme2k]

I have a 6GB mpeg-2 file

It neither explains how long nor what bitrate/resolution, only the format.

[gastorgrab]

I couldn't figure out why so many people wanted him to start all over again.
.

[mats.hogberg]

At this point, I think the suggestion of going ahead and author it, then shrink, is the way to go forward.
If that doesn't provide the quality you want, not much time and effort is wasted, and you can take the more time consuming way of reencoding it down in size.

/Mats

[lordsmurf]

Using DVD Shrink on homemade work is such a terrible idea. The video will buckle under the stress of a transcode process. Homemade and pro studio releases are two totally different realms. Pro releases are clean, from clean source. Homemade work, even from DV cameras, is rather "dirty" by comparison. And you cannot transcode "dirty" footage without it turning into kibble.

The best advice is to re-encode it to Half D1 is that is possible (and use correct bitrates for that res), burn to DL media, or split to discs.

DVD Shrink is a cheat. When used on studio sources, it's like copying answers from the honor roll kid on your left. When used on homemade sources, it's like copying answers from the retarded kid on your right.

[guns1inger]

DVD Shrink is a cheat. When used on studio sources, it's like copying answers from the honor roll kid on your left. When used on homemade sources, it's like copying answers from the retarded kid on your right.

That is probably the best and most succinct analogy I have heard for transcoding. Very nicely put (although it may be offensive to the retarded kids)

[offline]

Nicely put LordSmurf.

[greymalkin]

ha!

i sure like being able to shrink the poop out of those professional dvd sources. Theres no way I would have gotten 5 1/2 hours of decent quality (27" sdtv) on a DL otherwise.

[mikiem]

My own 2 cents worth... FWIW & all that...

lordsmurf is absolutely correct about shrink. If you remember or find any of the original postings when it was being developed, it was an attempt to make use of some *tricks* to quickly decrease mpg2 file size -- never meant as a substitute for proper encoding or re-encoding. If you think about it, at the speed it works it's magic, it's probably just re-writing the file discarding bits and pieces along the way. That's playing devil's advocate.

OTOH, it can be incredibly useful if used in *moderation* -- same as most stuff I tend to like. Encoding vid you can just miss the target size, or figuring out the max file sizes to go on a DVD it's easy enough for me to error. Shrink is a cure if it's just a tad too big -- a much less painful one that going back and re-encoding and re-authoring. A sometimes pleasant side effect is a bit of filtering without the time cost of normal filter rendering. Like any Rx, it has it's risks, can interact with other conditions & remedies, can cause the marginal to expire.

Frame size can spawn a bit of confusion... Think of it as filling your tank with premium or the cheap stuff -- 15 gallons is still 15 gallons. A smaller frame size at the same bitrate takes up the same bandwidth as a large frame. Reduce the bitrate & you save bandwidth, and lowering the frame size at the same compression levels reduces bitrate. That's why (US at least) sat & possibly cable companies reduce frame size in the stream to the descrambler (which expands them). The flip side is if you have too much content to encode at a given compression setting to fit, reducing the frame size means less to compress, so when the source is up to it, better quality then you'd get by increaseing the amount of full frame compression. [Please note: if you're evaluating smaller frame sizes, & the source quality is really marginal, it might not stand up to conversion, might need to be captured in the final delivery format.]

Another way frame sizes can be confusing is when it comes time to send the vid to the TV. TVs vary a lot, & all it took to fill the screen of an old crt was 320 width. When developing SVCD, I've read the logic behind 480 was that that's all most TVs would get anyway, figuring in losses from cabling etc. So depending on your hardware, cabling, quality & stored resolution of your source, all that, you might not see a difference going to half or in some cases 1/4 D1. Again, please think about it... If the difference between 1/2 height & full is 2nd field data, and you've got progressive content to a player that field doubles... Half height cards have endured for a decade, if only for viewing.

[Tom Saurus]

prufrockian: I think you should just split it in two and put in on two seperate DVD-R's. If your file was something like 4.6 GB, it would be worthwhile to shrink it.