VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 82 of 82
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Hi ,

    I have played a bit vith Virtualdub, looks great, very "light" on th ePC...
    The Problem is that the Help is not very helpful.
    I do not know what else it does(apart from cut the fotage you do not need, But Im still not sure how..?)

    Where I can get written manual or smthg similar to learn at least basica, so I want to edit one tape this eve, and let encodes thru the night! ???..

    Also, I could get only one .avi files of about 15. The whole point of editing is that one have to be able to get all the .avi files, cuts, connects them etc..., then encode, author, burn...
    How to get all my .avi files in th eVirtualhub ???

    I think the manual will be even better..

    Thank you very much!
    Quote Quote  
  2. VH Veteran jimmalenko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Down under
    Search PM
    There's a guides section to your left, and of course there's always google.

    Let your fingers do the walking
    If in doubt, Google it.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,

    I could not get any detailed guides on how to use VirtualDub, any Help??? , so:

    I have decided just to try and encode the whole miniDV tape footage and author it a bit an burn it on DVD.

    I have to tell you guys, the TMPGEnc is probably very good, but it is Very Slow !!??

    It took it arround 18 hrs for arround 40 min( aboutHalf of my 90 min LP mDV tape).

    The good thing is it sems it does not load the PC that much.
    I can send e-mails, etc...on the same PC, whule TMPGEnc works on the background.

    OK, my PC is not very fast, IBM P3 1Ghz, 256 Mbt RAM, but the very same PC using Nero Vision Express3, for the encoding of the very same footage only, it took about 7 hrs incl. burning !!!???...

    What is going on???..

    What is your experience ?
    Quote Quote  
  4. In my experience TMPGEnc is about half the speed of most other MPEG encoders -- about what you're seeing. It will depend on what settings you used though.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,

    Sorry, did not get that..:

    What do yoy mean?.......about what you're seeing...

    Are you saying that the very slow speed(about35-40 hrs for 90 min mDV tape, at 8000kbps VBR; layer2 48000Hz, 384 kbps audio ) I get on my PC is Normal ??

    If it is not, what is approx. speed for these setting, bitrate...for TMPGEnc ?
    And then, what could be the problem, if any?...

    Thank you.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by AAA
    Junk..,

    Please, stop trying to be clever and waisting Forum space !

    People who know something about Video authoring understand what I mean!

    The DVD has lower bit rate, so the quality is expected to be not as good as on miniDV !

    Please, stop ! Nobody needs your "clever" and very "useful" comments !!!

    Some of the really! inteligent and experience people, I beleive, will help me ( and ALL of US ) and send me their comment latter.

    Thank you in advance for Not Waisting Forum space any more !!!
    If you want help, first be humble toward those that have been around longer than you. If you do not like a reply, be quiet and wait for a better one that may take time to arrive. Giving stupid advice when asking for help (stop wasting forum space) will just annoy more knowlegeable people that may otherwise be inclined to help you.
    Quote Quote  
  7. I've never run either program on a 1 GHz P3 so I don't know how fast they should run. But if a particular video took 7 hours to encode with NVE3 then 18 hours with TMPGEnc isn't out of the realm of possibility.

    I ran a quick test converting a 60 second DV file to MPEG2. All tests were single pass, CBR 9600 kbps, on my single threaded P4, 2.8 Ghz:

    NVE3 ("high quality" setting): 76 seconds
    TMPGEnc (motion search estimate fastest): 127 seconds
    TMPGEnc (motion search estimate normal): 203 seconds
    TMPGEnc (motion search estimate slowest): 485 seconds

    2-pass VBR will pretty much double those numbers. Results will also vary somewhat depending on the video.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Thankl you for your reply!

    You wrote....took 7 hours to encode with NVE3 then 18 hours with TMPGEnc isn't out of the realm of possibility.

    Any idea why the NVE3 is so much faster ?

    For your test , as you know it works out for 90 min footage approx 24 hrs for2-pass VBR ( 12 hrs for motion search slowest) for your P4. 2.8Ghz.

    For my stone age , but very good IBM-P3. 1Ghz it takes relatively to its processor speed, Faster.( Faster than 3 times.)
    Still works..

    Also, do I have to buy additional DVD-Video codec with TMPGEnc as with NVE3?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Just like with NVE3, when you purchase the full package, the MPEG2 encoder is included.

    It takes about a 1.5 GHz P4 to match a 1 GHz P3. So it does't surprise me that a 2.8 GHz P4 isn't three times as fast as a 1 GHz P3.
    Quote Quote  
  10. TMPGenc DVD Author...

    when I use it to cut parts out of a video file it uses the entire length of the video when calculating the final size of the dvd output.

    Example video file is 2.8 Gigs. I cut out half the material but the output is still 2.8 (plus a tad more for the menus. etc.).
    am I doing something wrong? thanks.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Noki and All,

    I have just used TMPGenc DVD Author..
    It worked very easy! There is graph. representation below, show you if your total file size is below or above DVD size of 4.7Gb.
    When you add files, edit cut it does shows increase/decrease of the size


    1/ Just done 1st project using .avi stored on my PC from NVE3, total 90 min miniDV footage.
    1.1/ It took total of 32 hours to encode all using TMPGEnc . 2-way VBR, 8000kbps, PC-P3 1Ghz, 256 RAM.
    Anyone with P4? How fast encides per min footage, etc.??

    2.1/ Then simply opened TMPGEnc DVD Author, Add Files, one add, then edits, cuts untill max DVD size(4,7 Gb).
    2.2. Then create DVD folder to burn. which creates the VIDEO and AUDIO_TS files in any folder.
    it took for 4.3Gb- 27 min to create VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS .
    3.1Burn it. It took 8min34 sec , 12X on my lovely Philips 1640.
    No problem burning etc.

    The above point would be very useful for a beginer.
    It works, just takes time!

    The problemis:
    I tried to use alternative programs to NVE3, because I needed better DVD-Video quality.
    What I can see now on the PC screen only!, the Quality has not increased(to my eyes..)but have Not yet tried the DVD burned with differnt programs in stanalone player and TV.
    Hope, there will be differnce!!??

    One think is that if even on the TV screen there is not much differnce, then perhaps Nero might win , because is so much faster( Encoded and burned same fotage for approx. 7 hrs.)!!!???
    Or any other opinions???


    Because, on all DVD, there are visible lines when in motion, looking at the PC monitor.!!!???

    Hope that helped.

    Thank you.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by AAA
    Because, on all DVD, there are visible lines when in motion, looking at the PC monitor.!!!???
    Is that the problem you've had with the "quality" of your MPEG conversions all along?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Yes and looks like Less sharp video .

    The ,avi files just look very good in comparison., on the PC.


    Do you know now why?
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Search Comp PM
    A direct from the camera DV clip will ALWAYS look better in the pc than after you have encoded it to MPG2 for later authoring to DVD. However that diference will be pretty much undetectable when viewed on the proper venue which the TV. You are also using the word "resolution" in the context of the differences of quality that you state you can detect between the raw from the camera file and the DVD disc. The resolution by the way has NOT chanced at all during the encoding process unless you purposely told it to do so. It's all in the bit rate. As was previously mentioned, 60 min of DV avi is about 13 gigs and in that format would require 3 dvd discs. You are compressing that 13 gig avi to MPG2 to almost 1/3 the original file size. Something simply has to give. Of course there is going to be a detectable diference in the quality as seen on the PC Monitor. The beauty of this whole wonderful process is that you will probably not see much diference when you view it on the TV.
    No DVD can withstand the power of DVDShrink along with AnyDVD!
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by AAA
    Less sharp video
    Here's what I get with NVE3 on a still frame:

    Original DV AVI file:


    NVE3 encoded VOB file 9600 kbps, interlaced, TFF:


    Are your results worse with still frames?
    Quote Quote  
  16. You have been asked several times just exactly what it is that you perceive as lower quality, and are apparently unable to answer the question.

    Are you aware that there are multiple possibliities of what this could be, and distinctly different solutions for most of them? As previously stated, you are incorrectly using the term "resolution", this never changes.

    Jerky motion, blurry images or motion, large blocks, small blocks, comb line effect, audio synch issues, indistinct hi-action scenes, these are just a few of the things you could be seeing.

    Nero mentions MPG-2 in its DV-AVI transfer template, could be doing a real-time encode, Nero is good burning software, poor quality at almost everything else. Gotta get the video to the PC in good quality, this is the first step. Use something else, many have been suggested, many are free.

    Did you use a tripod? If quality is a great concern, you should already have one, particularly if you intend to encode to MPG2. You should also be using 60-minute mode, not 90.

    Strongly recommend you start to learn the various stages of this process seperately. Also strongly recommend you start to learn using the best source you can lay your hands on. Try playing a DVD thru the camera pass-thru, capture and encode that, see how close you can come.

    Where you get on this board is up to you, but stop arguing with people and try at least to imitate someone who has spent a few minutes reading., You don't yet seem to have a grasp of some of the basic definitions, this is causing confusion and frustration on both ends of the conversation, as well as wasting time. I mean, come on, you can't find a guide for Vdub? If that's the best you can do, I'm done here.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,

    Hi Nelson37,jtoolman2000, etc...

    Sorry, I never meant to argue with anybody.

    All I wanted is to find out why the DVD footage was not so ,lets say sharp as the .avi files., and get some help.
    I believe, a lots of beginers will benefit, too.

    I agree abt the bitrate,when transfered to PC, the ,avi files for the 90 min was 18.7Gb. Which is exactly the same bitrate as for 60 min -13Gb.

    So, why would 90 min would be of lower quality?

    junkmalle, thank you, too!

    Yes, mine are worst..when I paused to take still frame, one can see the interlacing lines..?
    Your images are very good.
    So, why you do not like NVE3?Looks like good quality and what is more important- it is 4 times faster!



    Woluld you please, also, kindly tell us which is the Best FREE Full encoding and DVD Authoring Program(s), (from te .avi files to the DVD burning) with encoding DVD-Video, etc codecs included ?


    Thank you very much!
    Quote Quote  
  18. In almost every video format, SP mode will give better quality than LP mode. That is why it is called SP mode. Bitrate is not the sole determiner of quality.

    Not very many here use all-in-one solutions, and you have been told why.
    There are those who want the best they can get, and will take the necesary time, and there are those who want it easy and fast. The two rarely go together.

    You have too much to learn to offer much specific help; I have given specific suggestions to try and isolate the problem. Try them and you'll improve your results.

    You should understand and be able to identify field order problems, interlacing issues, difference between PC monitor and TV, use of filters, differences in playback software, problems with multiple re-encodes, codec issues, IRE black level correction, these are just a start.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Search Comp PM
    Thanx, nelson37.

    Still , it would be very useful for everyone if we can get an answer to my q-n abt the Which FREE programs.

    Thank you .
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    There are no free programs unless you steal directly or indirectly the MPeg2 royalties that must be paid by someone for the MPeg2 encoder, Mpeg2 decoder and AC-3 encoder and AC-3 decoder.

    Not to mention any return for the software writer that creates the program that is easy to use by people who refuse to learn the basics and demand to be spoon fed a solution. Why do that if the program and support has to be "free"? Will you mow my lawn and paint my house for free please? Oh and bring the paint.

    You have been given $30-99 fully legal solutions. I think you should apply for a government subsidy or man the tin cup to net the free solution.

    BTW: Emma Peel rules !

    BTW2: Both of your stills show improper DVD MPeg2 scaling. Both are clipped to 0 and 255. The second image shows a gamma shift compared to the first.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by AAA
    junkmalle, thank you, too!

    Yes, mine are worst..when I paused to take still frame, one can see the interlacing lines..?
    Here's what you need to understand:

    An interlaced video camera takes a picture every 1/60 of a second. First it takes one picture and sends half of it to the TV. That half picture consists of every other horizontal scanline of the image -- called a field. 1/60 of a second later it takes another picture. It then sends half of that picture to the TV -- but this time it's the scanlines that were missing from the first picture. Anything that moved during that 1/60 second will be in a different location. You don't see interlace comb artifacts on the TV because you only one of those half pictures at a time. Every 1/60th second you see a new half picture -- the previous half picture has faded away.

    When a computer or DV camcorder records those half pictures it combines pairs of them into full frames. So each frame of DV contains two half pictures. When you see those frames on a computer monitor you see interlace comb lines whenever anything moved during that 1/60 second interval -- unless the software you are using is hiding them from you. You should learn to love seeing interlace comb lines on the computer while editing. Without them you don't know if your video is interlaced or not.

    When you create a DVD compatibe MPEG 2 file from a DV source you should keep both half pictures. When your DVD player plays them it will separate the two fields and display them one at a time on your TV(exactly the way your video camera did) and then move on to the next pair.

    If you had taken the first advice I gave you, the suggestion to post a sample image or give more details of what was wrong with your conversions, you would have learned this days ago and saved us all a lot of time.

    Originally Posted by AAA
    Your images are very good.
    So, why you do not like NVE3?Looks like good quality and what is more important- it is 4 times faster!
    NVE3 does not offer control over the details of MPEG encoding. It's not 4 times faster, it's probably about 2 times faster -- I suspect NVE3's motion search precision is more like TMPGEnc's fastest mode.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by edDV
    BTW: Emma Peel rules !
    Yes!

    Originally Posted by edDV
    BTW2: Both of your stills show improper DVD MPeg2 scaling. Both are clipped to 0 and 255. The second image shows a gamma shift compared to the first.
    I just wanted to run a quick test with NVE3 (I don't normally use the program) to see if it gave "low resolution" results as AAA was indicating.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!