Nerovision maximum bitrate

[whenloverageswild]

Hi:

I have an older version of Nerovision. The maximum bitrate alloweded is 9716 kb. Now, at a freind's home, I saw the newest version (comes with Nero 7 Suite) and this version reduced the maximum bitrate down to 8000 kb.
So, does anybody knows why they applied this reduction of bits allowance?.
The case is that when you have video sources smaller than one hour, and you put the "now" max. bitrate (8.000 kb) you have a lot a DVD disc space unused and wasted.
Or maybe somebody knows something I missed around.....?

[guns1inger]

There is a maximum bitrate aloowed for DVD authoring. This can be as high as 9800 kbps for video content, however depending on the audio format used, it can be a lot less. PCM audio requires 1536 kbps, just for audio, which means a maximum video bitrate of a lot less than 9000 kbps.

That said, Nero is a poor quality authoring tool, so nothing it does would surprise me.

[whenloverageswild]

Thanx. for reply.

I'm accustomed to Nero because it is easy. I tried an Adobe Premmiere version a year ago and I found it very difficult to use. To much technical interface, not very friendly.

What kind of capturing/converting/authoring tool can you suggest?.

There are millions of opinions about which one is better. Some use 3 o 4 tool to do just one miserable thing, that procedure is not an option.
My only concern is quality since I encode my personal DV camera videos and I have already realize that every tool I've tried produce a degradation of the original DV source.
Also I have read that some recommend Canopus Procoder or Cinema Craft Encoder, but I was adviced that they are very expensive softwares.

Your personal opinion?.

[guns1inger]

If done correctly, you should see little difference between your DV source and the DVD, providing you are realistic on the amount of video you put on a disc.

If you want it done properly then it does take several tools. If you want done simply, buy a DVD Recorder instead.

I use Vegas for editing, and VD Lab Pro for authoring. For encoding I was using ProCoder, but more and more I find I am using HCEnc. It is free, and produces very good quality.

That said, you can produce far better quality than Nero using Vegas Movie Studio, which is a consumer version of Vegas aimed at what you are doing.

[whenloverageswild]

Hi:

There is a new Nero (version 8) out there.
Someone have already tried it?.
Which encoder is used inside Nerovision?.
Does it allow to used a max bitrate of 9716 or upper, as the version prior to Nero 8?.

[jman98]

People use Nero because it's easy, not because it's good. Nero now has a lower bitrate? Too bad. This is the price you pay for convenience.

I also am using HCEnc more and more. It is giving me excellent results. It's also free.

There are ways (not necessarily legal) to get expensive software for free, but if you don't know how to do that I'm not going to tell you nor am I going to suggest that you do such. I can tell you that many people have Procoder and CCE and have never paid for them. HCEnc provides a high quality encoder at an excellent price (free), so there really is no need to resort to potentially illegal means to get other programs.

Nerovision uses an encoder designed by Nero. Nobody on these forums who cares anything about quality uses Nerovision. Nobody. Those who use Nerovision do so because either
1) they don't know any better.
- or -
2) Nero is easy to use and they don't want to learn how to do anything that's more complicated or takes longer and are willing to live with what they get from Nero just to do it the easy way.

whenloverageswild - If you just want an easy one click type tool, then you have no right to complain if what you use has limits. Easy != best results
(!= means "does not equal" for those of you who don't have IT backgrounds)

[whenloverageswild]

Jman98 said:

If you just want an easy one click type tool, then you have no right to complain if what you use has limits. Easy != best results
(!= means "does not equal" for those of you who don't have IT backgrounds)

I say:
thank you for your input. I'm not complaining at all. I just want to know some more about the whole thing of converting and authoring a DV Handycam signal the best way possible (and if it is easy, best of the best!!!).

Do not tell me nothing about illegal software, because I do no want anything illegal. I do no ask for it, I won´t use it!.
I have my own bundle version of Nero, wich supports conversion at a max. rate of 9716 kb (newest versions set max. in 8000 kb), but before investing some bucks (or more) in a new software I want to know a little bit.

With this in mind, I found out that many say Procoder rules, other say it stinks. You go for a free encoder, but you need another tool to edit and finish the whole thing. Besides, some have to used Avisynth or some of the kind, then you need to go back to school to learn to write commands (and I'm not the generation born with the old DOS language).

So that said, most of the encoders (and that is the final point) wash out the original signal (note: I noticed that DivX, while could pixel some more or less, produce a more vibrant image. Why?), So I was looking for the best encoder that could keep the brillant and cripsy image of the orignal DV Handycam signal.
Some said it is not possible since there is a compression process down from DV to MPG2. But I still wonder why some commercial (or not so commercial, I don't know) utilities could keep the quality almost intact.

[/quote]