AVI bitrate as to DVD

[Somebla]

Hello,
I have a AVI movie and I would like to convert it to a DVD format.
My question is how do I now how much bitrate the AVI is. Because when I convert it (I am using TMPGEnc Xpress) I can get up to 9200 kbit bitrate, and I dont want to blow up the file size for nothing.

I want the DVD to be exactly as the AVI file quality (bitrate).

Here is the AVI info took for VirtualDub:


according to that I should choose 946 bitrate in TMPGEnc ? (cuz is sounds really littel)

Thanks

[celtic_druid]

It is really little. If you want anything close to the same quality then you need a higher bitrate. For a start you are re-encoding, also you are encoding more pixels and using a less effcient codec (MPEG2 vs. MPEG4).

You don't want to blow up the size for nothing? What about leaving half a disc empty for nothing? Surely that is worse?

[SaSi]

The source video is 1hour 30 minutes. For DVD Source material, this is good enough to fill a DVDR.

Since the source is 512x384, which will have to be increased to 720x480 to become DVD compliant, it means that bitrate has to increase by the same proportion to accomodate the frame size increase. Also consider that MPEG-2 requires almost 2~3 times as much bitrate as a carefully encoded xVid avi needs. (This suggestion is - I know - very crude so don't jump on me 8) ).

If all this seem complicated, then just consider the following: 3400kbps is a good average bitrate for this type of avi you have. It allows almost 3 hours on a DVD and won't reduce the video quality of your AVI, provided you do at least a two pass VBR encode with high motion estimation. (with Tmpgenc, this will take almost a day - depending on the machine).

[monzie]

Xvid to DVD without increasing the file size?

Buy an avi enabled DVD player.

Or

READ THE HOW TO GUIDES on the top left (handily coloured in GREEN)<<<<<<<

[dartboard]

I think Sasi has the right idea.

Last night I transcoded a AVI file to DVD using tmpgenc. The avi file was 2 hours and 43 minutes (163 minutes) and I used a bit rate of 3200 and it ended up 4.1 gigs in size ( a little low, but close enough). On my 50 inch pioneer projection non-digital non-HD tv it looks as good as cable.

So for a 90 minute movie you could use 163/90 = 1.81 times my bitrate or 3200*1.81 = 5800 (approximately) bit rate. Frankly, unless your film is especially difficult (e.g. lots of motion), I doubt such a high bit rate as 5800 will be needed.

Finally, if you are picky about the quality of your video, you might want to choose VBR (variable bit rate) in TMPGenc and make sure the average bitrate is less than 5800. VBR allows a very high bit rate for difficult scenes and a lot less for credits and people standing around talking.

[Somebla]

I didnt explain my self so good..

I dont mind the file size being big, but if i can make it small and it will stay as the same quality the AVI file is, why not ?
I'm "stingy" on the file size because I would like to put 2 movies on 1 DVD.

So now I understand that MPEG-2 and the increase of resolution effects the amount of bitrate, and you cant just use the same amount as the AVI file.

So now i'm asking if there is a "formula" that calculates the effect of the MPEG-2 codec and the 720x480 resolution and makes it as equal as the AVI quality ?
or maybe or program that you just add the file and it shows you how much bitrate for: DVD, SVCD, VCD etc..

thanks again

[SaSi]

Also, the source avi in question appears to be a "chopped-down" movie in terms of frame size. Therefore, the normal bitrate assumptions for DVD-2-DVD transcodings don't actually apply since some quality is also lost.

I use 3400kbps for TV recordings on series episodes that allow 4 episodes (~3h) on a single DVD. Quality is great, -i.e. no visible difference from the TV broadcast, especially using CCE 1+3 multipass VBR. I have not tried Tmpgenc (it's too slow) but Mainconcept cannot produce the same quality with two passes at such a low bitrate.

On the other hand, I was given some material that was already transcoded into lower resolution xVid. They lacked the resolution and dynamic range compared to a DVD source - even TV source - so in my view, 3400 kbps for such material is more than enough.

Another option could be to reduce frame size further. 352x480 or even 352x240 (NTSC) reduction with VirtualDUB along with a smoother filter would graciously hide the encoding effects and allow the same quality at even lower bitrates (~1800 kbps or so for 352x240). I will try this myself.

[mats.hogberg]

There is no correlation whatsoever between AVI bitrate and what bitrate to use when encoding to DVD. No matter what, you'll arrive at a lower quality - that's how lossy encodings (like mpeg, DixX, XviD & c) work.
The higher mpeg bitrate you use, the closer to the source quality you'll arrive. What's acceptable to you, only you can determine. If you arrive at a bitrate below 3.5-4000 kbps, you'd better resize down to 352x480/576 (NTSC/PAL) or it will look much worse than your source.

/Mats

[monzie]

If you arrive at a bitrate below 3.5-4000 kbps, you'd better resize down to 352x480/576 (NTSC/PAL) or it will look much worse than your source.

/Mats

That is just plain untrue.

[jimmalenko]

If you arrive at a bitrate below 3.5-4000 kbps, you'd better resize down to 352x480/576 (NTSC/PAL) or it will look much worse than your source.

/Mats

That is just plain untrue.

Personally I agree with mats. A 946kbps XviD will be marginal in terms of quality anyway, and I've never seen a resize up do anything but harm the quality, all other things being equal, because it's creating new information that isn't there to start with. Resizing down throws away information, but I have found it to be a better overall solution than resizing up when dealing with low-bitrate divX/XviD clips ... unless I've been doing something wrong all this time ...

[monzie]

I said it was coming..so read my guide for finding OPTIMAL BITRATES..and yes you've been doing it wrong all the time..... :

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=15

[jimmalenko]

I said it was coming..so read my guide for finding OPTIMAL BITRATES..and yes you've been doing it wrong all the time..... :

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=15

Interesting ...

[lordsmurf]

There is ZERO CORRELATION between the bitrates of the MPEG and the bitrate of the non-MPEG source. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

That guide is hurting for bitrate allocation.

To say 720x480 will look great at 2.2 Mb/s is ridiculous. Even DVB on $10,000+ hardware DISH encoders cannot pull that off.

Resizing UP is also a bad choice at least half of the time. You introdice ALIASING artifacts that are rivaled only by deinterlace artifacts.

[monzie]

Believe me Jim, it is THE way to find the optimal bitrate. I only ask that people try it (it going to cost ZERO/NOTHING/ZILCH/BUGGER ALL).....and then give me some feedback...especially on the encoder used.

Yeh, the 'one click' boys aren't ever going to use it but its NOT aimed at them..its aimed at serious users who want the best......and for those of us who CAN use a calculator....half the people on here cant even be bothered to use SEARCH...as you well know.

[monzie]

There is ZERO CORRELATION between the bitrates of the MPEG and the bitrate of the non-MPEG source. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

That guide is hurting for bitrate allocation.

To say 720x480 will look great at 2.2 Mb/s is ridiculous. Even DVB on $10,000+ hardware DISH encoders cannot pull that off.

Resizing UP is also a bad choice at least half of the time. You introdice ALIASING artifacts that are rivaled only by deinterlace artifacts.

That just shows how little you (really) know....

..try it......smurf

[jimmalenko]

Believe me Jim, it is THE way to find the optimal bitrate. I only ask that people try it (it going to cost ZERO/NOTHING/ZILCH/BUGGER ALL).....and then give me some feedback...especially on the encoder used.

Well, it does cost ... I don't have CCE for a start

[monzie]

I've given the free links to CCE SP Trial at the bottom of my guide..so no excuse.

[jimmalenko]

I've given the free links to CCE SP Trial at the bottom of my guide..so no excuse.

That wasn't there when I first read the guide

Doesn't the trial leave a watermark ?

If I were going to test it out, I'd do it on something that I wanted to keep (watermarks give me the shits right-royally), and I'm not about to invest in CCE just to prove you right or wrong, so I'll reserve my judgement to those based on my own experiences. Given that the source is poor (946kbps) to start with, 2.2Mbps is really gonna be tested in a high action scene, and you can't turn crap into gold. It's only really be pron that I've attempted to resize up, so it's not really a big deal for me, because if it's a movie I rather buy it on DVD that download some third-generation, washed-out camera job from within a cinema.

[monzie]

Yep it has a logo on the bottom right, but your only finding the OPTIMAL BITRATE with it..the real encoder is whatever you choose....encoded at the calculated kbs.

What are you some kind of chicken? Scared I might **** in your pot..and your rightous resloution x bitrate 'guide'...which you knicked from the DVD-lab web site anyway?

[jimmalenko]

What are you some kind of chicken? Scared I might **** in your pot..and your rightous resloution x bitrate 'guide'...which you knicked from the DVD-lab web site anyway?

Who ?

[monzie]

I wonder............

[lordsmurf]

What are you some kind of chicken? Scared I might **** in your pot..and your rightous resloution x bitrate 'guide'...which you knicked from the DVD-lab web site anyway?

Those fuckwads stole that info from me!

I had that on my site 6+ months before it ever appeared on the mediachance site. The graphcs, the bitrate, even the TERMINOLOGY I CAME UP WITH TO EASILY EXPLAIN THE INFORMATION was utterly raped from my site. In fact, I custom made that information to explain bitrate tech to a customer about 8-9 months ago. It was made JUST FOR HIM, but ended up on the site because of how nice it came out.

All DVDLAB did was make it prettier and slightly reword it. Someday, should I find the time, I planned to make mine pretty too. B&W on deadline was the best I could do at the time.

That's fine. I publish information for others to use. If I wanted to capitalize on it, I'd charge admission. But to not even give credit to the original author is SCUMMY and borderline PLAGIARISM. So before you start accusing people of taking information, you'd better make sure you've got your facts straight before making some half-cocked incorrect guess.

I've also been accused of "taking" Supermediastore's DVD FAQ information. SMS asked permission to use it (which I granted), though I was disappointed to see how they have butchered it.

Anytime I want somebody else's information, I ask permission and give credit to the author. THEY DESERVE IT!

Online information theft (plagiarized information) pisses me off to no end! Most webmasters are like this, and for good reason.

[monzie]

Even if we dont see 'eye to eye' on this or other topics...that stinks...the bastards....all i can say is revenge IS sweet!.....




....but more often than not impossible to implement.....unfortunately.

[funkguy4]

as a side note just ebcause a file is AVI it doesn't speak jack abuot what's inside. it could be raw for all u know. and if you're all about the file size, check out the kvcd notch matrix and tmpgenc or cce. u can get awesome quality out of it @ resolution like 720x480 and rates like 2200 for low to medium motion and 2600 for higher action. VBR IS A MUST IF YOU WANT TO CONSERVE SPACE WITHOUT SACRIFICING AS MUCH QUALITY!!

[SaSi]

As said, AVI is just a wrapper for video frames and audio. There is a large range of codecs to use from and some can offer large compression rates compared to others. Hufyuv for example, is one of the worst in terms of compression rate. DivX and xVid are much better in this term.

So, an AVI encoded with Hufyuv can be compressed further by a factor of almost 100 to MPEG-2 without any visible quality loss. xVid on the other hand, is much more efficient in terms of compression compared to MPEG-2 (because MPEG4 is better than MPEG2).

[monzie]

Sorry. I dont believe mpeg4 (x/d) is 'better' than mpeg2..but it DOES create smaller files....to say its 'better' is wrong...compresion MUST take place somewhere...its unavoidable.

[funkguy4]

Sorry. I dont believe mpeg4 (x/d) is 'better' than mpeg2..but it DOES create smaller files....to say its 'better' is wrong...compresion MUST take place somewhere...its unavoidable.

actually, MPEG4 can store the exact same data into smaller space because it has more compression features. i.e. detail can be stored in different ways that MPEG2 just can't do.

[celtic_druid]

Exactly. If you were to take the same raw source then MPEG4 should achieve the same quality as MPEG2 at a lower bitrate.

[funkguy4]

Exactly. If you were to take the same raw source then MPEG4 should achieve the same quality as MPEG2 at a lower bitrate.

Thanks for the kudos, mate!