TMPGEnc DVD Author 2.0 - BEWARE!

[oldfart13]

The Liteon also produces an RM file (I'm assuming Real Media but I could be wrong). The player will ignore this file so it shouldn't be an issue. The Panasonic doesn't produce an RM file but the discs I've produced play in a whole slew of machines, both old and new so it also shouldn't be an issue. Heck, I've tried Womble Mpeg Video Wizard edited files (set to the DVD spec template, not automatic) and still have crazy compiling times. What 2.1 needs is a "do not re-encode" button which it is lacking. Turning off the transcoder would probably bring the compile times back down to 1.6 times but there is (of course) no such option....

My real gripe with all this is that (for me) using a DVD recorder file as the source file, 1.6 says the files are compliant while the new and improved 2.1 says (apparently) they aren't and decides to re-encode them for you. That is simply unacceptable....

[classfour]

I tested TDA 2 (2.15, actually) last night with a 6GB file.

I did set quality to 100% in the source window.

I did not set it to keep the filesize to fit on one disc.

The final rendered dvd (static menus) was 6GB.

The only difference noted was the manner that TDA reads MB (1024KB) compared to windows XP (1000KB).

The entire rendering process required 22 minutes.

The source was an mpeg of 2 files combined in Ulead MS Pro 8.0 (720x480, dolby 2.0).

[laspis59]

Heck, I've tried Womble Mpeg Video Wizard edited files (set to the DVD spec template, not automatic) and still have crazy compiling times. What 2.1 needs is a "do not re-encode" button which it is lacking. Turning off the transcoder would probably bring the compile times back down to 1.6 times but there is (of course) no such option....

My real gripe with all this is that (for me) using a DVD recorder file as the source file, 1.6 says the files are compliant while the new and improved 2.1 says (apparently) they aren't and decides to re-encode them for you. That is simply unacceptable....

First of all if Pegasys/TMPG are reading this thread which I've linked them to,I would also like to see the option "do not transcode" even non compliant video.This would clear things up.The option dont have to checked by default with TDA but just there as a personal user's preference.
TMPGEnc DVD Author 2 obviously has its own idea of DVD compliant,which differs from Womble's.
Why 1.6 dont mind your recorders's files and other software's and v2 hates them,I dont know.We need an answer sooner rather than later.

The only difference noted was the manner that TDA reads MB (1024KB) compared to windows XP (1000KB).

The entire rendering process required 22 minutes.

The source was an mpeg of 2 files combined in Ulead MS Pro 8.0 (720x480, dolby 2.0).

You have a point with the way "TDA reads MB (1024KB) compared to windows XP (1000KB)."

Like you classfour,the rendering is fast with ALL the MPEG/VOB files I've thrown at it.Unlike Zionbergs.

I've yet to try DVD Recorder files though as I dont have one yet.I'm running a little behind the times and spent my money on a lot of other things I want eg new bed, three seater couch ect... I also need to donate to this site again its been a while and to LIGHTNING_UK,Andre Wiethoff,Phaeron ect..ect...

[Mr Fish]

This thread is very topical for me.
I've just registered here because I'm looking for a utility I can use to take my DVD compliant MPGs, create a simple menu and burn the result onto a DVD. This needs to be done in the shortest time possible and must be as automated as possible.

I've tested various software ranging in price from $70 to $12,000 and I haven't found the perfect tool just yet. Thought you might want to see the results of my recent testing.

These tests all build 4 x DVD-compliant MPG clips onto a single DVD with a simple menu (no motion thumbnails). the total size is around 1.2GB and the total running time for all the clips is around 40 minutes

I'm not using a super fast PC for this so no doubt these times could be reduced with more processing power, but it's a relative test. Certainly looks from this that TDA2 is slower than 1.6 but I haven't played around with the quality settings in TDA2 yet.
Quality is similar across all these applications.

DVD-lab Pro
Compile – 12 mins 23 secs
Write Image File (Optional) – 5 mins 30 secs
Burning – 6 mins 30 secs mins (8x DVD-R)
Total (without saving image file) = 18 mins 53 secs

TDA2
Build Track – 10 mins 44 secs
Build ISO File (Optional) 6min 3 secs
Burning – 6mins 47 secs (8x DVD-R)
Total (without saving image file) = 17 mins 31 secs

TDA Ver 1.6
Build Track and create Video_TS folder– 8 mins 01 secs
Burning – 6mins 56 secs (8x DVD-R)
Total (without saving image file) = 14 mins 57secs

I would welcome any other comments or suggestions for me to reduce the time even further.
Thanks
MP

[ramlin]

Hi!
Has anyone tested TDA 2 with MPEG 2 files that were originally encoded by Tmpgenc 2.5 Plus? I would have thought that as Tmpgenc would have done the encoding it would, by definition, be DVD compliant for TDA and not be transcoded - am I wrong?
Thanks,
Clifford

[laspis59]

@ramlin

I've tested MainConcept MPEG Encoder 1.4.2,TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 and imported Titles/VOB's from DVD's ripped with DVDDecrypter.
All the MPEG's produced by these tools render fast within TDA 2 with no sign of transcoding.AFAIK?

@Mr Fish

TMPGEnc DVD Author 2 renders faster than v1.6 on my PC.Wierd.
TDA is fast IMO and AFAIK is one of the fastest.I dont know any other tools that are faster (I settled with TDA after trying a few other authoring tools) although there probably might be if you look hard enough.If your desperate to find anything that will render quicker then all you can do is download all the software in the tools section under "Authoring (DVD)" and search google.
But as you might already know speed isn't everything,compliance IS.

Still haven't received a reply from Pegasys.I'm starting to think that either their customer services are lazy or they are hiding something

[jimmalenko]

I would have thought that as Tmpgenc would have done the encoding it would, by definition, be DVD compliant for TDA and not be transcoded - am I wrong?

You could be wrong, but you might be right also.

Let me explain

Since TMPGEnc is a dedicated encoder, it offers the flexibility to encode MPEGs to pretty much any size or specs as desired by the user. There are only a few select frame sizes, GOP lengths and frame rates that are DVD-compliant.

[Tom Saurus]

laspis59: I hope that they are reading this thread at Pegasys. Perhaps by reading such threads they can get a grasp of certain things that need to be adjusted in Tmpgenc DVD Author to make it an even better program that what it already is. It would be comforting, to get some indication that they actually take the time to try to improve and tweak their programs, from feedback such as what they can get here at videohelp.com

I am very pleased with Tmpgenc DVD Author 1.6, it is a really easy to use program. Back when I bought it, there was a man who worked there that actually let me send a "money order" to pay for the program. It took awhile to get there, but they did receive the money and gave me a code to turn it on permently. I know most of the world has credit cards or paypal, but there are some of us that can't qualify for a credit card, and would not feel comfortable about using one, if they did qualify for one. I am grateful for that individual, who "bent" a little and allowed me to buy Tmpgenc DVD Author 1.6, by money order. I sure hope that there are others like that in the Pegasys Organization, one's who will try to accomodate a customer.

They evidently have some brilliant technicians at Pegasys. I am trusting that they will find any weaknesses in the program and fix them. I have downloaded a trial version of Tmpgenc DVD Author 2.0 to try, but unless they bend a little bit from Credit Card/Paypal methods of payments, I won't be able to buy it. I appologize for straying away from the original topic of this thread.

[laspis59]

Tom Saurus:I certainly hope they read this thread because I sent them a customer service form regarding the "Transcoding" issue and linked them to the topic.

TDA 1.6 is a great tool and you certainly bought an excellent authoring app there Tom.

TMPGEnc DVD Author 2 is even better and there are features I dont want to be without.I really like it because it is so easy to create fully compliant DVD's with nice menu's.I feel I do trust Pegasys/TMPGEnc but then again some companies start out good and trustworthy and then end up losing their good reputation and customers due to not listening to what their customers demand from the software.

[presto]

I'm really confused. I have Tsunami Mpeg DVD Author Pro. How does this relate to Tmpegenc DVD Author 2?

Is DVD Author 2 a step up or down or sideways for me?

Why the heck don't they just stick to one naming convention?

[Rosco]

I've created a coupla HUNDRED discs with 2.0 and it has NEVER transcoded/reencoded anything I didn't tell it to.

Period.

MPEG sources have been ProCoder created, TMPGENC created, HCenc Created and Panasonic DVD Recorder created. And have mixed sources in the same disc.

[laspis59]

News to anyone reading this thread.

I CAN confirm that Zionbergs and brashquido claims are WRONG,period.They dont know how to test the software.Sorry brashquido if this offends you but it's true.

I CANNOT and WILL NOT say no more because of confidentiality and respect for the authors of TMPGEnc DVD Author

So the answer is NO the software DOES NOT transcode unless you tell it to.

Hope this clears things up.

This will be my last comment in this thread.Confusion solved.

[TMPGSupport]

This is Support at TMPG.

This is a response to the whole "transcoding" issue.

The quick of it - DVD Author 2.0 does NOT transcode your video without your consent. As for the "quality slider" issue, that'll come later on in this post.

First off, to clarify, with regards to our software, the term transcoding refers to the process of taking an MPEG file and then "tweaking" video components (mostly DCT information) in order to adjust the filesize so that the end file can be fit onto a particular size media. This is only done at the output stage, primarily because the program encoder needs to take into account other factors, such as menu information (if there are motion menus and/or thumbnails and audio), as well as any specific audio information (if it is Dolby or LPCM, for example). Seeing as how the official bitrate limit specification for DVDs is approximately 9800 kbps, using our software to "transcode" means that you are adjusting the video in order to make the entire project's contents fit within a specified file size limit.

If you select "none" in the output stage for the kind of transcoding you want done, then there will be no transcoding (as defined above). Period. Transcoding is NOT re-encoding with regards to our program.

Now, on to the matter of re-encoding, which is where I believe all of this is arising from. When our program gets a video file, it will examine it to see if it is truly "compliant", as in conforming not only to the ISO MPEG-2 video specification and the ISO DVD-Video specifications, but also ensure that it has all things in order: bitrate, video/audio length, scan mode (if any), timecode, framerate, resolution, aspect ratio, etc., etc.. If any of these are not "in line" with the ISO standards, then our program, in order to try and make good on our promise of having the video play on as many DVD players as possible, it will take the steps necessary to "correct" these issues (with certain exceptions being resolution and framerate, as our software cannot wholly re-encode the entire video, which is what is required if either of these two specific things are not right. If these are wrong, they are pretty much showstoppers).

What our program does, in order to ensure that video brought into it and sent out is compliant for use on as many DVD players as possible, it will correct these errors. Usually, when re-encoding of what a user considers "compliant" video occurs, it occurs for the following reasons:

- if there is any sort of timecode correction. Since most people won't take the time to stop and scrutinize their timecode, our program ensures that the timecode for audio and video are in sync. If they are not, it will take steps to correct this, either by adding video (by duplicating the last frame over and over, until filled) or audio (silence) in order to ensure
that the timecode is in sync. Our program will never "cut" on its own in order to ensure timecode sync. This extra content is usually added at the end, and is considered "filler" (and may account for slight discrepancies in output file size from the original and the output). For reference, professional video/film people will make sure, before they even bring the video into an editing program (much less our output program) that the timecode is in sync, or they'll correct it first.

- In the above example, if the disparity in the timecode is significant enough, then it may be required that some of the GOPs in the video are re-encoded, usually the ones near the end. This is to again ensure that compliance is met and that playback is possible on as many DVD players as possible.

- If cuts-edits are made in the middle of a GOP, then that GOP (and possibly the entire GOP structure of the video) needs to be re-calculated and re-encoded. Cut-editing into a B or P picture and converting it into an I picture necessitates for that newly created I picture to be re-encoded and recompressed. This is because of the fact that I pictures are completely self-sufficient. Since GOPs all start with I pictures, when this is done, it has a ripple effect through the rest of the video.

Unless you are using a professional program/encoder (e.g. Final Cut Pro Studio, or AVID, for example) where GOP and timecode synchronization and compliance are virtually guaranteed (and the tools to check it are provided), we cannot guarantee that other programs on the market (such as our competitors) will create an output file that has these details correctly written. We hope they are written properly, but considering the number of errors that can accrete in a video file over time, taking it from one camera to another editing system to another operating system to another encoding program, etc., etc., you can see where errors may add up. Our program, if it finds errors in things like timecode and/or GOP structure, will correct them (if possible).

Some people may think that because their DVD plays fine on their DVD player that the files on that DVD are "compliant". This is not necessarily the case. DVD players today have a high level of error tolerance (to account for
simple things like scratches, fingerprints, and dust), and if there is a minor error in the data of the DVD file, the player can usually correct it on the fly (for that one time only, when it is being played back) using the
built-in hardware.

Also, some people have also mentioned that importing a DVD that our program creates back into our program will still be re-encoded, well, it depends. It depends on whether or not if the "new" DVD has a menu or not, if it is going to be an exact copy or not (including audio and menu items), and if the issue is that the progress bar takes time to finish when the output file is being generated. Consider this: the computer still has to crunch the numbers, which may take time considering your processor, it still has to generate a menu (if you have one), it still has to parse the video and create IFO, BUP, and VOB files and the folders for them, and write this all to disk. The speed at which this happens is more dependent on your computer's processor, RAM, and other variables than due to our program doing anything to your video. The file sizes for the output folders should be identical. If not, there is a good chance that something is not right with the video file itself, something that our DVD creation program cannot fix (but our encoding program most likely can).

If users want a "quick and fast" solution to making DVDs, then we apologize for this new program being perceptibly "slower", or for the fact that it "meddles" with the video. We, as a company, thought our users cared more about a program that focused on adhering to official standards and creating high-quality output, about making sure that their video was truly and officially "standards compliant" and playable virtually anywhere, as opposed to just having video files quickly cranked out into DVDs. As our programs grow and mature, it will change, and we appreciate you bearing those changes with us.

Now, for the "quality slider issue":

There are two things regarding the re-encoding controls in our program.

The first is in the Source Stage, Track listing settings.

This slider is only for the quality level at which you wish to have any Smart Rendering done. The Aspect ratio and bitrate control mode are determined by the video in that track, so, for example, if you bring in a clip that is 16:9 but encoded using CBR, then the fields in the Output Settings group will reflect those. The slider is only for setting the level of quality that you want Smart Rendering done. So, if you make one small cut, the Smart Rendering routines will need to re-encode those frames around the cut material. The slider determines the quality level at which the re-encoding is done. It's set to 90 percent due to the fact that this usually is a good enough level of re-encoding, but it allows for speediness since in many cases using the 100 setting would require the re-encoding of redundant data (in other words, 90 has been found to be the most efficient overall setting).

The Menu video encoding settings determines the bitrate at which your motion menus are encoded at. Since all motion menus are encoded as MPEG-1 files, this lets you set the bitrate at which they are encoded. The default is 7000 kbps, again what we've found to be a sort of "sweet spot" for MPEG-1 motion menu encoding. Since all MPEG-1 files are CBR (or at least they are if they are to be used in our program), we can allow for the bitrate setting to be modified globally.

Hopefully this clears up a lot of the confusion, misdirected anger, and ignorance that's been out there regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

TMPG Support Staff

[Guest34343]

Thank you for the clear and candid explanation. Would that all companies were as forthcoming. (Are you listening, Elecard?)

[mrready]

I'm using the trial version of TDA and want to avoid re-encoding the video taken from a JVC DVD recorder when using cuts and edits. I primally want to just add a menu but after reading the following quote I can't figure out if I'm making cuts into the middle of a GOP or not when I do edit out some scenes.

If cuts-edits are made in the middle of a GOP, then that GOP (and possibly the entire GOP structure of the video) needs to be re-calculated and re-encoded

How can I be sure that I'm not making cuts-edits in the middle of a GOP?

Thanks

[lordsmurf]

TMPG Support Staff needs some lessons in public relations. A bit gruff.

Anyway, the technical info was very good. Their product is taking a lot of needed issues into consideration, something not found in lower all-in-one style software. Very good to hear.

[TripleTransAm]

Yes, a bit gruff to be sure. However, without knowing any other details, I think I'd be correct in assuming they get a heap-load of equally gruff if not gruffer (<- !) messages from disgruntled users and I guess it can be tough to keep up good spirits when a thread starts out on the aggressive side.

I found the info in the TMPG post quite informative as well, as it shed some light on some questions I began forming while reading this thread (I am TOTALLY new to this editting and authoring thing, as is evident by my few other posts). Ironically, I happened to do a search on 'transcoding' in the built-in Help function of DVD Author 2.0 and found a more condensed explanation of the term that I found to be even clearer than the post seen above. So I guess a case of RT(F)M could apply here... I am equally guilty of that, I admit.

Anyway, as a data point, my first 'official' (ie. non trial-version) DVD was put together a few nights ago... recorded off my PVR-350 capture card at 352x480 (analog cable feed) and then editted out the commercials using VideoRedo while actually watching the recorded program for the first time, then using DVD Author 2.0 to burn the 43 minutes of material to disc with a cutesy background image and menu structure. From editting to test viewing of the output DVD, a total of 2 hours including the viewing time. Actual processing and burning time was just under 20 minutes.

For a newbie like me, that's something. And that was only my third ever DVD since installing the trial version of DVD Author 2.0 a few weeks back. That gets my thumbs up, to be sure. A lot of credit goes to the wealth of info on this site, by the way. Awesome site, and awesome helpful folks, topped off with what appears to be an awesome product from TPMG.

Side note: after reading what the transcoding function does (in the Help file), I decided to keep it off just in case, since I know my projects will fit on one DVD. Just in case...

[Fairhope]

I've tried to avoid posting in this thread, but I wanted to say that I don't see where TMPGSupport was "gruff" at all. I agree with neuron2. I think it reflects a great deal on a product when their support staff will go out of their way to post in a thread in an effort to provide facts and clear up any confusion with regards to their product.

I'm not a huge poster here, but have been able to gain a lot of insight into this hobby by looking for the answers to my questions through all of the guides and forums which make up this site. I've learned a great deal from all of the regulars here, including LordSmurf and his site - digitalfaq and nomorecoasters.

But I just want to say thank you to TMPGSupport for providing this information. As long as I've been lurking here, I can't say that I've ever seen anyone from Ulead, Pinnacle, Sony, Cinemacraft or any of the other "commercial" products respond directly in these forums to members questions or concerns.

Ty

[mrready]

I'd just like to echo the comments made about the excellent support from TDA. I had posted a question a few posts up and when I didn't receive an answer here I tried the TMPG Technical Support and they responded to my query in about an hour with a clear consice answer, and continue to answer additional questions in the same manner.

Timely and and professional technical support is rare enough these days after you have purchased a product be it hardware or software but this effort by TMPG to address my concerns as a user of their trial software is unheard of at least in my experience.

Mark

[brashquido]

I've been away for some time, so sorry for the reply on this. I do thank TMPGSupport for taking the time to make such a detailed response. I've definatley learned something from it, and it is good to have some information on what is actually being done to cause the filesize differences I was seeing in my tests. Still not sure what to think regarding DVD compliant video issue though. Canopus (who I use to produce my source using Edius Pro 3) claim their output as being stricty DVD compliant and so are TMPG, I'm just stuck in the middle.

I hope TMPG have also learnt something though, as my customer experience with them to date has been below par. While I do feel perhaps a bit of a tool for jumping the gun a bit with regards to starting this thread, I think it is still somewhat justified given the context. I went with TMPG DVD Author 2.0 after trying the demo of several commercial and open source DVD Authoring programs as I wanted something easy to use. Then while asking a totally unrelated question regarding TMPG DVD Auth 2.0 on the Doom9 forums the claim of forced transcoding was brought to my attention. I sent a support request on Tuesday, May 30th to TMPG (and got an auto response verification e-mail) asking about my original questions and the forced transcoding claim. After doing some of my own tests I find that I am getting filesize differences, indicating source (which were created as DVD compliant in Procoder) file manipulation and the only reference I could find in the help files regarding source file manipulation was to do with the Smart Rendering Transcoding engine. By this time it had been getting onto three days since TMPG had recieved my support request to which I still had no reply/update (and still haven't two months later), so given my limited knowledge and the info I had to go on at the time the logical assumption would be that TMPG was transcoding my source video. It was only then that I posted this thread.

Hopefully this clears up a lot of the confusion, misdirected anger, and ignorance that's been out there regarding this issue.

Confusion? Definately!

Ignorance? For sure, but that is why you'd purchase something like TMP DVD Author isn't it? For the convienence of not having to know the background tech to any great degree.

Misdirected anger? Maybe not so much anger, but definatley frustration. If I had recieved any sort of response from TMPG that my support request was bein attended to, then this thread never would have existed. TMPG had three weekdays in which to give me some form of response, which is 100% not in anyway my fault.