MPEG2 or WMV

[itou_br]

I have hundreds of mpeg2 files 720X480, 6000 bit rate and I'm thinking on converting all files to wmv.


Questions:
Is WMV better than mpeg2?
What is the best setup on the Tmpegexpress to convert the mpeg2 files?

Thanks.

Airton

[AllstarElyar]

its all depend on what u want
if you want good quality then convert to XviD(this give better quality in same bitrate as .wmv)
or if you want to the file become small in size then convert to .wmv with a low bitrate

[edDV]

I have hundreds of mpeg2 files 720X480, 6000 bit rate and I'm thinking on converting all files to wmv.


Questions:
Is WMV better than mpeg2?
What is the best setup on the Tmpegexpress to convert the mpeg2 files?

Thanks.

Airton

What is your intended use for these files? Are they interlace or progressive currently?

Your MPeg2 files are DVD ready. WMV and other MPeg4 formats will require special software or hardware players.

Many are holding off for next gen advanced codecs. BD/HD DVD can support only MPeg2, VC-1 (advanced version of WMV) and MPeg4 h.264. Conversion to these new formats will take far more time than authoring what you have to DVD. Future hardware encoders will speed the conversion.

It depends what you want to do with these files in the future.

[itou_br]

These files are going to be used to play on computer only.
We don't want to lose quality on the conversion and want to save some space.
We don't want to use other formats that are going to require special codecs. We are thinking on using WMV because it's a standand format on windows XP and has a very good quality and will save us at least 40% space on HDs on the server.
We don't use those files to authoring DVDs, but we do play it on full screen and on large displays such as projectors and plasmas.
Any question?

What do you guys suggest?

Tks,

Airton

[jman98]

These files are going to be used to play on computer only.
We don't want to lose quality on the conversion and want to save some space.
We don't want to use other formats that are going to require special codecs. We are thinking on using WMV because it's a standand format on windows XP and has a very good quality and will save us at least 40% space on HDs on the server.
We don't use those files to authoring DVDs, but we do play it on full screen and on large displays such as projectors and plasmas.
Any question?

What do you guys suggest?

Tks,

Airton

Your premise is wrong. Quality and disk space are opposed to each other. You can have more of one only by having less of the other.
More disk space = less quality
More quality = less disk space
That is how it works. The only way to not lose quality for sure is to use a lossless codec, which will take up very large amounts of disk space.

I would recommend converting to Divx/Xvid as it's better than WMV at the same bit rate. Also, WMV is proprietary and Xvid/Divx is not. However, if you can live with WMV and it's good enough for you then you could use it. WMV is a little too tied to Microsoft for my tastes. Please note that WMV can be deceptive in terms of quality. I was given a sample file by a friend to convert to VCD and it was at close to VCD resolution, maybe 320x240. When played on a PC in a normal sized window, it looked crystal clear. However, when played at full screen, the blocking and defects in the source became apparent and while I was able to convert it to VCD easily enough, the final result was very disappointing. The small resolution of the source hid the imperfections when played on a PC. If you are making your decision based on small resolution videos played on a PC, you might be very surprised what the video really looks like when played full screen.

[SatStorm]

I suggest to keep them as is.
But if you have to convert on something, then convert to XviD or h.264

[edsmith77]

HUh???

More disk space = less quality
More quality = less disk space
That is how it works. The only way to not lose quality for sure is to use a lossless codec, which will take up very large amounts of disk space

[edDV]

These files are going to be used to play on computer only.
We don't want to lose quality on the conversion and want to save some space.
We don't want to use other formats that are going to require special codecs. We are thinking on using WMV because it's a standand format on windows XP and has a very good quality and will save us at least 40% space on HDs on the server.
We don't use those files to authoring DVDs, but we do play it on full screen and on large displays such as projectors and plasmas.
Any question? ...

Are these camcorder generated, movies or what? Did you encode your MPeg2 as interlace or progressive?

If from camcorder (Hi8, DV etc) there will be significant loss deinterlacing and converting to MPeg4 unless you wait for the encoders to get better. VC-1 will initially be the encoder of choice for handling interlace followed later by h.264. WMV is progressive only.

These losses will be very obvious on a projector.

Progressive material may survive the conversion better but 40% HDD space is cheap these days and 1TB capacity HDD will be available this year.

Question: Do you have any clue how much time and effort will be required to make this MPeg2 to Mpeg4 conversion? Trust me, it won't pass an accounting analysis unless you are replicating these servers in mass quanity. Just buy a larger HDD.

[itou_br]

Those videos are music video clips. We have more than 1500 music video clips on our servers.
The problem is that we use those videos on a Digital Signage network we manage.
The main issue is not the space required on our servers, the problem is that every time those videos are updated, in other words, when we add new videos to the our Database we have to transfer those videos to our customers via internet. He have a very good link here at the office, but if we can work wih smaller files, that would be great. Would save a lot of time on our transfers to customers.
My first intention when I think about converting the files to WMV was to save space, keep it on a very good quality and work with a standard that is default on windows XP, which is the operation system that the eqquipements that we use on our customers have, so we would not need to buy or install any codec on those machines.
But I'm totally open mind to find a better solution.
Any help would be much appreciated.
What are the sugestions?
Just to remind, all our files are MPEG2-interlaced-bitrate 6000.

Tks,
Airton

[edDV]

Well that becomes a business decision. I wouldn't destroy the existing MPeg2 library but those files are very large for the service you describe. Most similar businesses would be using 300-750 Mb/s wmv for download streams. wmv needs no special players or codecs.

[Ai Haibara]

wmv needs no special players or codecs.

Well, not quite. You might have to install WMP and some codec support from Microsoft's site, especially if you're using an older version of Windows. (Note that that doesn't mean you'll have to USE WMP... )

And, of course, you'll most likely have to install additional codecs/etc. if you're using an OS other than Windows.

[edDV]

wmv needs no special players or codecs.

Well, not quite. You might have to install WMP and some codec support from Microsoft's site, especially if you're using an older version of Windows. (Note that that doesn't mean you'll have to USE WMP... )

And, of course, you'll most likely have to install additional codecs/etc. if you're using an OS other than Windows.

Well true. I should have said for the typical customer. Also, most Win98, MAC and Linux downloaders know the WMV drill by now.

The only format more widely supported is Mpeg1 but file sizes are large. Real, Quicktime and FLV are other possibilities but each has a set of issues.

[itou_br]

I use winXP on all eqquipements.
I don't think if I made myself clear, the mpeg2 files are downloaded by the units on the customer directlly from our server, and they are played only after the files are locally on the machines.

What format do you guys recommended me to use?

Regards,
Airton

[edDV]

I use winXP on all eqquipements.
I don't think if I made myself clear, the mpeg2 files are downloaded by the units on the customer directlly from our server, and they are played only after the files are locally on the machines.

What format do you guys recommended me to use?

Regards,
Airton

That depends on what your customers want. Any format can be provided that way. It is a marketing decision. Ask your business manager.

[Cornucopia]

Well, I think your plan is pretty good.

However, you WILL lose some quality. Remember that MPEG2 is lossy, as is WMV. WMV codecs don't support interlacing (except the Pro and VC-1 versions), so you're gonna have to live with the deinterlacing changes, too.

If this is OK with you, the main problem is conversion workflow. You mentioned MPEG2, but said nothing about audio format. AC3? PCM (which could be easily compressed)? MP2?...

Also of concern is choice of conversion applications.

For the large collection that you have, it makes sense to invest in a good batch converter. ProCoder, Sorenson Squeeze, Cleaner. Haven't checked, but hopefully you could have it set up with a template that goes direct from MPEG2(+???Audio)-->DeIntlc-->WMV. You could possibly even call this template with a CommandLine batch file or have a "Watch Folder" for updates to be automatically encoded when uploaded to your server (and maybe ftp'd after encoding).
Other possibilities would be AVISynth frameserving to the WMVEncoder, Super, the Original TMPGEnc...

AFA bitrates: MPEG2 Interlaced at 6000kbps is your source. An "equivalent quality" WMV file would probably be 2500--3500kbps. You'll have to do some experiments on short sections of clips to determine what is acceptable. The good thing is that since MPEG2 has already "thrown out" alot of the difficult-to-encode material, what's left might be easier to encode. Let's say the MPEG2 is 75% of the quality of the original YUV file. The WMV might be 89% of that quality, giving you 66.75% of the original. You decide. IIWY, I'd do a number of A/B comparisons of the MPEG2 with the WMV, also playing the MPEG2 in a DVDplayer app (so it'll deinterlace and be more of a direct comparison).

Good luck,
Scott

>>>>>>>>>
edit: I also agree with edDV in that you really ought to hold on to the originals.

[LOWTECH]

Why not just get a second far bigger hard drive, external if required or internal or both. Hard drive space then becomes no longer a problem and you retain the quality videos you have and also have more space for many more......hard drives are now very cheap..........

[itou_br]

The main problem is that the larger the files are, more time to send it to our customers via internet.
The main problem is not hard drive, is time to transmit over the internet.

[jman98]

itou_br - No offense, but your original posts were kind of skimpy on details and it would have been very helpful for you to have provided the info at the beginning about your situation instead of doing it so much later. You've been a member long enough to know that the less you tell, the less good help you will get. A lot of the posts in this thread provided really good suggestions that only now we realize don't apply to you at all. You've just dragged out the process of getting the help you want by skimping on the details of your real situation. Please keep that in mind for future posts.

Given your situation, you have no way to preserve quality AND reduce file size AND reduce transmit time. My suggestions in order of preference are:
1) Cornucopia's advice, as always, is excellent. WMV would shrink your files and provide acceptible quality, although you will lose something in the conversion. Maybe it won't be noticeable, but even small quality loss at best is inevitable.
2) You could always convert to Quick Time. I'm not a big fan of QT video, but it does reduce file sizes. You'll lose quality for sure this way and it will probably be noticeable at any decent resolution.
3) You could (choke) consider going to Real Media which will give you the smallest file sizes and the worst quality.

[itou_br]

jman98 - Yes, you are right. Sorry for the lack of info on the first post.

But now the situation is explained.

I will do some tests here.
Regarding your post, QT and RM are not an option as the application I use do not haddle them very well.

We are using TMPEGenc with windows media codec 9.
Any reccomendation for that?

I will send a new post with some conclusions from the tests.