Quality Loss when encoding/burning to DVD

[David01]

When I was finished editing my video in Adobe Premiere, I clicked "Export to DVD"
I was given several options on how I wanted it to be encoded.

Here are the encoding options:


I choose the default: "NTSC DV HIGH QUALITY 4MB VBR 2 PASS"
I then burn the video on to DVD. When it finished, I played it back on my DVD player. The image quality is terrible, much worse than the original video.

I tried burning it again, using a higher quality encoding process. (9MB/s)
It still looked like crap when i played it on my DVD player.

What am I doing wrong? Any help is most welcome. Thankyou

[Baldrick]

what is your source video?
which version of premiere?
how do you burn/author it?

[David01]

-DV AVI footage captured from camcorder
-Premiere Pro 6.5
-I use Premire to burn it. "Export to DVD"

[edDV]

Try the 7Mb CBR or VBR or better yet make a custom CBR 8.1Mb/s wPCM or 9.5Mb/s with MP2 224Kb/s.

So many fall for that 4Mb "high quality" setting.

For DV camcorder material, you want high bitrate and 60-75 min per DVD upper expectation.

That menu looks like Premiere Pro, not v6.5.

v6.5 didn't have "Export to DVD". It had "Export Timeline" and then "Abobe MPeg Encoder"

[edDV]

On Premiere Pro 1.x, Export to DVD was used for a quick "daily".

Serious MPeg2 encoding is done in the Export Timeline -> Adobe MPeg Encoder. Many more options are provided. The assumption is you will be authoring the DVD in a different program.

I get good results form the Premiere encoder. Can you post a screen cap that demonstrates the problem?.

[David01]

Here are the settings that I can choose from






Can you help me pick which ones I should choose?

[David01]

I just noticed something: at the top of this picture:





It says: MPEG2-DVD. Is that what I want? Its shaded so I cant change it.

[edDV]

Lets max it at

CBR
One Pass
Target 8200 (if PCM audio), 9500 if MP2 (224Kb/s audio)

What camcorder are you using? 16:9 might be contributing to the problem.

[David01]

Interlaced or progessive?
Field Order: upper or lower?


I am using an Optura 60. I recorded footage in 16:9

[edDV]

I just noticed something: at the top of this picture:
...
It says: MPEG2-DVD. Is that what I want? Its shaded so I cant change it.

Umm ... , what are your Project settings?

Is this from a DV camcorder or something else?

Full disclosure is needed. My detective skills suck.

[edDV]

Interlaced or progessive?
Field Order: upper or lower?


I am using an Optura 60. I recorded footage in 16:9

Interlace
Lower

The Optura 60 will be pretty poor at 16:9 but you already did that so carry on.

In future you can expect higher quality shooting at 4:3. It will use more of the CCD.

Your project settings should be NTSC Widescreen DV 720x480 29.97fps.

[brianwrx]

Not true, the Optura 60 has a 16:9 native CCD:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=166&model...11153&pageno=2

[edDV]

Not true, the Optura 60 has a 16:9 native CCD:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=166&model...11153&pageno=2

Quote Canon

"The story of how we do it may be a bit technical, but the result is clear to see. Canon camcorders use the entire width of its image sensor to capture your precious video in true 16:9 format. What difference does that make? It's simple. With more pixels captured, you get better image quality. Other camcorders force the wider picture into a smaller space on the sensor- giving you a less true image, with fewer pixels and lower quality. On a Canon camcorder, the canals of Venice will be as grand as you remembered seeing them."

OK marketing speak.
So where is the technical backup information?

"With more pixels captured, you get better image quality."

How many pixels? More is not a spec.
More than what?

When they make a specific claim, they need to defend it.

[brianwrx]

So you don't have to back up your claim with technical specifics but they do? If you really wanted to you could look up the specs on their website. They are there, just not on that particular page.

I didn't see a lot of tricky marketing speak. It simply says their CCD is 16:9 sized. When choosing to record in 4:3 it will use less of the CCD (basically triming the edges off). This is different than some competitve units or even older Canons that did the opposite: a 4:3 CCD and didn't use the top and cottom parts of the CCD when recording in 16:9, therefore reducing quality in 16:9 mode.

So you could be right about how it may take crappy 16:9 captures, but by definition the 4:3 captures it take will be even worse because 4:3 is using less of the CCD.

Back to the original point, the Optura 60 is at no disadvantage recording in 16:9 over 4:3. So feel free to record in 16:9 if that's what you want.

[brianwrx]

In future you can expect higher quality shooting at 4:3. It will use more of the CCD.

[edDV]

I looked at the Canon site but couldn't find a spec similar to this one that Sony posts.

In the past, full width 16:9 CCD use was limited to the GL2 and above. This may have changed but if true 16:9 has reached the low end consumer cameras, don't you think they would be making a big deal of it?



Correction the GL2 only has 410,000 pixel CCDs and does not do true 16:9.

Again until recently, true 16:9 requires the XL2.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=165&model...10350&pageno=0

I'd like to see specs like these
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=165&model...10350&pageno=3

[brianwrx]

Ok, I apologize, I didn't read the Canon marketing blurb fully. They don't use a true 16:9 CCD. They aparently are lensing the image onto the CCD horizontally, or "squeezing" the image as they say, to use the full resolution of the CCD in 16:9 mode.
So I'm not sure if this makes 16:9 the same or worse than 4:3. I don't fully understand what they mean capturing 1.2M "effective pixels" to tape. This far exceeds the number of pixels in a 720x480 or 960x480 frame. So does that mean there's plenty of resolution in the CCD to actually provide more effective image quality in a 960x480 frame?

[edDV]

Ok, I apologize, I didn't read the Canon marketing blurb fully. They don't use a true 16:9 CCD. They aparently are lensing the image onto the CCD horizontally, or "squeezing" the image as they say, to use the full resolution of the CCD in 16:9 mode.
So I'm not sure if this makes 16:9 the same or worse than 4:3. I don't fully understand what they mean capturing 1.2M "effective pixels" to tape. This far exceeds the number of pixels in a 720x480 or 960x480 frame. So does that mean there's plenty of resolution in the CCD to actually provide more effective image quality in a 960x480 frame?

The problem is they aren't clear about what they are doing. The Sony cameras referenced above are 3CCD. Single CCD camcorders need to extract R,Gand B from the single 1MegaPixel CCD so the horizontal resolution is already being shared.

[jagabo]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Optura-60-Camcorder-Review.htm

In 4:3 mode the Optura 60 gave us approximately 423.7 lines of horizontal resolution, with approximately 297.8 lines of vertical resolution, generating a real resolution of 126,177.86. This model’s widescreen mode gave us approximately 466 lines of horizontal resolution and approximately 265.9 lines of vertical resolution, producing a real resolution of 123,909.4 pixels.

You'll have to see their other reviews to see how this compares to other camcorders.

[vhelp]

Wait. I just wanted to go back to the image pic that what was
posted a few up..

Looking at the pixel count, (based on that pic) both pics are posting
690k pixels for the two aspect ratio coverage.. 16x9 and 4x3.

The only difference, is the shape, but the coverage, is the same.
That tells me, that when I take the source and edit any one of them,
I will get the same results in terms of pixel quality.

So, if that pic above is demonstrating the actual camera's pixel coverage,
then given the above, would seem to make no difference if one used an
alternate method for producing finished 16:9 videos.

But, comparing one camera to another, but who's pixel coverage is of
different deminstions and/or numbers, is like comparing Apples to Oranges.
And such an argument in *that* case, would be worthless..

Also, why argue about Camera A ($2500 bucks) vs. Camer B ($500 bucks)
about their pixel (aspect ratio) coverage, when it is clear that there
is something wrong with that (unfair) comparison. IMHO,
it would be a mute point/argument. ( course, you could argue with the
above topic, IF you were comparing *two* brands of similar dollars and
specs -- thus, Apples to Apples )

FWIW, my latest dv cam, model: JVC GR-DVL820U

My last dv cam (purchased for $179 used shelf/return - who cares)
and it has 3 different widescreen modes, of which I'm not sure if this
camera produces true or synthetic 16:9 footage. With this cam, when I
shoot footage, I do so in 4:3 mode. Later, I 4:3 -> 16:9, and the results
are very good. Actaully, I do 2.35:1 AR ... but that's another story

I also like the fact that w/ this cam, you can shoot footage in full frame
(semi-hack) mode, at 30p (29.970 fps) and have zero interlace. But, this is
good for things like computer show or something similar. Anyway.

.
.

( I come from the older generation of dv cams, owning a Canon ZR10,
and this model had a 16x9 feature, but it was plaiged by pixel artifacts
when shooting footage in this mode. But, because I wanted the widescreen
look, (and after trial 'n error research) I came to the conclusion that
a 4:3 -> 16:9 (directors cut version) would look very good, if processed in
completeness to the end, or IOW, properly.
Since then, and to this day, when I shoot footage, I do so in 4:3 mode.
Later, I process to 16:9 by cropping and resizing. Who is to know for
sure *how* I obtained the 16:9 source. For all anyone knows, I shot in
16:9 mode And thats how I've been living the life of a director in
this field. )

-vhelp 3876

[Cornucopia]

I just noticed something: at the top of this picture:


...

It says: MPEG2-DVD. Is that what I want? Its shaded so I cant change it.

Whoopity-do, it says "Max 7mbps"! You should notice the AVERAGE bitrate: 4

NOT GOOD for home camcorder, interlaced material (especially if it is handheld). Crank it up so that it is something like this:

• Quality = Max (5?),
  NTSC, 16:9,
  29.97 (drop or non-drop, depending on how you set the camcorder & editing app)
  Interlaced, Lower,
  VBR, 2pass,
  Target = 7.5Mbps (this is what they normally mean with "AVERAGE")
  Max = 9.5Mbps
  Min = 1.5Mbps
  M=3, N=15

Then set audio to MP2 (16bit, 48kHz, stereo, 192kbps, CBR) or AC3, if you could (similar specs).
(Boy, nothing about Open/Closed GOPs, Motion precision, Qmatrix #s, etc! Is that all they really give you to work with in PremierePro? Man, I'm glad I got Vegas) Good luck.
Maybe you could just frameserve. Then you might have more (better!?) choices of encoders.

Scott