tempg's mpg2 seems only 480*576?

[kkkkkk]

I copied home movie from DV camera, and am using tempgenc to mpeg2 it. I note in the output bar at the bottom the thing is super video-cd pal(mpeg2 480x576...) i can't remember exactly what the original video file size was, but i'm sure those numbers were much higher, something like 700x500 or something like that. is there a way to compress the (13 gig) raw video file from the camcorder and keep higher quality ( i presume the higher numbers are more pixels or something per inch and therefore higher quality?). or is that the best that one can do with mpeg2. i need to be able to burn output to cd's (no dvd burner) and to play in a regular dvd player, the stand alone sort unde the TV. tks anyone kkk

[BJ_M]

you are making a pal svcd -- therefore the size is correct ... you can get good quality from this size .... in fact in this case its not so much the size but the bit rate that is more the deciding factor .....


btw -- DV is NOT "raw" avi .. it is compressed ...

[cooljoe666]

Sounds like your already on the right track. Less is best. Stay as close to original as possible before converting to the final result.

[ZippyP.]

Look up DV to SVCD in the guides section.

[RabidDog]

I'm amazed you have got as far as you have, considering your lack of knowledge. You are in the right place to learn tho.

[kkkkkk]

Hi again, thanks for the pointers to all. i haven't so far had any synch problems. quality seems excellent, so no real complaints there. i mainly wondered if there was an even better quality i could make it. firstly am i right thinking that the 700 * 500 or whatever that tempgenc initially reports the DV file as being implies more pixels (or something) per inch? and if so, is the 480 * 576 the highest achievable for MPEG2? would i be better off compressing it into something else? i set bitrate as constant, i think there's a highest quality setting i have been going for in that bitrate thing. i also set motion picture estimate as highest quality, it takes a couple of days (really!) for the thing to encode, but thats OK it's an old spare PC...... Finally, with 80gig h/d's coming in near 50 quid, thats nearly as cheap as DV tapes; would anyone recommend keeping original copies of the DV tapes, uncompressed (about 11-13 gig per hour) on spare hard drives, to be able to compress to a new best format if one is coming out anytime soon?

thanks all

kkk

[bugster]

480*576 is the correct resolution for SVCD. This is highest quality standard video that you can put on CD media to play in a standalone. Some standalones will play higher quality (higher resolution or bitrate) but then it is no longer SVCD (its often referred to as XSVCD) but then you have less chance of it playing on any particular DVD player.

Your source material is DV-Avi which has a resolution of 720*576. This happens to be the same as DVD resolution (for Pal). The only reliable way of encoding at this resolution for DVD player use is to invest in a DVD burner. Encoding to DVD standard also requires higher bitrates to maintain quality and your couple of days encoding time would increase signficantly.

BTW, no need to use highest for motion search precision. High is quite a bit faster and you can't see any difference in quality. You might even want to experiment with normal or motion search estimate. These can make a huge impact on encoding times and may have little impact on quality depending on the type of source material.

[kkkkkk]

bugster, thats very helpful thanks, i gather then that if i bought a dvd burner (about 80 quid and falling) i could encode to the same quality as both the original tape and a commercial dvd? and alternatively, in the meantime i could/should keep all the backup tapes, probably on a couple of cheap large hard-drives (about 40-50 quid and also falling), then make the dvd's when i get round to buying a recorder. at which stage the extra drives will always come in useful for something.........

cheers

kk

[RabidDog]

2 points I would make
1) I wouldnt advise archiving anything on hard drive they are too unreliable (in archive terms) . They generally last, what, about 4 years? I would suggest keeping your original tapes.
2) Your output quality can never exceed your input quality... so maybe dont expect DVd quality at first.*

*this does not preclude the use of filtering etc

[kkkkkk]

no, i only meant to archive things on h/d until dvd-burners fall to 50 quid or less, then burn to dvd. i suppose i could always just keep the wee tapes, but to buy enough of them would wind up being quite expensive. i realise that quality won't be that of commercial dvd produced from a 70mm camera, i just want to do as much as possible to ensure that quality is as high as i can make it. encoding time really doesn't matter, if it takes a whole week to do one tape i couldn't care less, as i say it's an old redundant machine, doing nothing much else, just i can't be bothered selling it, and it seems pointless just to chuck it. so every time i fill another tape, i just copy it onto the h/d, fire it up, and come back a few days later to see how it's getting on! a bit like RAID, but RAIC (C = computers!).

[bugster]

bugster, thats very helpful thanks, i gather then that if i bought a dvd burner (about 80 quid and falling) i could encode to the same quality as both the original tape and a commercial dvd?
kk

You will never achieve the quality of a commercial DVD with home video. The source material simply isn't good enough. Even the best amateur videographers won't achieve the same quality as a proffesional film can transfer. You can get good enough that the average person wouldn't notice though!

If you want to get the best quality DVD-Video from home DV, you have to start with the source material and think about things when shooting video. One of the biggest problems is camera shake due to the use of hand held cameras. You may not notice it when playing back your DV video on the TV, but your encoder does see it. This eats up bitrate, leaving less for the real picture and thus reducing the possible quality attainable. Think about using a tripod whenever possible. Also think about lighting, this also is one of the problems associated with encoding home video.

BTW, I am far from an expert on this, just repeating a couple of things I have learnt from this site and put into practice myself.

[kkkkkk]

hi again, re-reading an earlier post in the thread, i realise that perhaps i should be doing something different; i think i should be encoding to DVD standard at the moment, as that appears to be the highest quality to which i can encode, then just keep the resultant (smaller) encoded files untill i get a dvd-burner on which to burn them. that being so, could someone please tell me is Tempgenc the thing i should use to encode from these DV files to whatever is the best possible DVD standard? thanks again

[bugster]

TmpGenc is one choice for encoding to DVD compliant mpeg-2, and a pretty good one too. If you already bought it and are familiar with it I see no reason to change.

If you do want to change or investigate other options, some to choose from include Cinema craft encoder, mainconcept and Canopus pro Coder.