Mpeg-2 editing confusion...

[robjv1]

Which reminds me - Womble has a horrible and slow encoder under the hood so don't use it. However, the nice thing is that you don't want to use Womble unless it's for only a few frames nears cuts/joins/etc where it makes little difference. There's a way to frameserve this to a better MPEG encoder, but, meh, wouldn't bother.

MPEG Video Wizard 5.0 uses Mainconcept encoder.

Since when? Is this a relatively new development? I guess I better look at the feature list.

With VHS footage where I have two sources and am working with MPEG2 files, I'll often end up using the frame translation tool to shift frames in one source (perhaps a few seconds of video at a time) to match the position of frames from another source. However, I usually outsource the re-encoding duties to MainConcept Reference via VFAPI, which can handle the MPEG Video Wizard project files and filters.

I've always gone this route due to the awful quality re-encodes you got directly out of MPEG Video Wizard -- it'd be nice to not have to apply that extra step if the difference in the quality is negligible.

Edit: Looks like it's been integrated since the November 2009 release. I've been updating -- but I never bothered to check the update history for new features... I'll have to look in the options to see if you can at least do a two-pass encode. Thanks, this is a nice find.

[poisondeathray]

since version 5, they've used mainconcept mpeg2 encoder (nov 2009)

you can see it in the changelog
https://www.videohelp.com/tools/MPEG_Video_Wizard_DVD/version-history#changelog

November 2009 Release
First release of the new MPEG Video Wizard DVD 5.0.
Main New Features:
1. Integration of licensed MainConcept MPEG-2 video encoder.
.
.
.

[robjv1]

since version 5, they've used mainconcept mpeg2 encoder (nov 2009)

you can see it in the changelog
https://www.videohelp.com/tools/MPEG_Video_Wizard_DVD/version-history#changelog

November 2009 Release
First release of the new MPEG Video Wizard DVD 5.0.
Main New Features:
1. Integration of licensed MainConcept MPEG-2 video encoder.
.
.
.

Yes, doesn't look like you can specify a two-pass encode -- they still have their old "Smart Fast," "Maximum Speed," and "Maximum Quality" category designations, but perhaps the Maximum Quality one is a two-pass encode now? I won't get my hopes up, but I'll have to mess around with it when I get home and compare. I wished they released the technical details of the difference between the three settings so I knew what each equates to, although I have a hunch that it may be listed in the manual. If not, I'll shoot them and email and see what they say (and suggest a revision!).

[robjv1]

Just FYI from Womble:

Those settings for the encoder are mostly irrelevant to the MainConcept encoder, and the two pass encoding feature has not been used, since we are not sure its quality gain with the increased complexity of software integration. But I will pass your suggestion along.

[PuzZLeR]

Yeah, it's nice and all, but really, is a good encoder with a product like Womble, and what it's used for by the majority of its customers, really that necessary?

I should update more, and may still, but for a few frames on cuts/joins/fades/etc, ... meh... I'm in no hurry. A good encoder inside was never what Womble was about all these years anyway.

[robjv1]

Yeah, it's always been one of the program's few faults, but it's an easy one to forgive. Any good encoding related news is just gravy.

[amtt]

Changing the setting did the trick. The authoring took 15mins instead of the previous 1 hour. And the picture quality is noticeably sharper and I think, slightly brighter.

Ive saved all the files to DVD and will slowly edit, author and burn them to playable DVDs. I can now also help a friend who has 60 DV tapes and still plays them with this camcorder after giving up on trying to convert them. Hes not very tech oriented and was considering having a professional do it. Should be good for a few pints.

Thanks for all help.

Art

[PuzZLeR]

Yeah, it's always been one of the program's few faults, but it's an easy one to forgive. Any good encoding related news is just gravy.

Yes I agree, and I agree that this is the case for most any encoder really. Editors aren't encoders - it's only a value added feature.

One good feature of an editor is to smart render the result. Then you can always use a stand-alone encoder for the final step. I know even Womble does stuff like export to H.264 iPod, whatever... I just completely ignore it.

As for MPEG-2 imported to Womble, if anything more extensive than a few frames does need a re-encoding to MPEG-2 I just do it with CCE - then drop that into Womble for the final edits.

[PuzZLeR]

Glad to see you're on your way.

I can now also help a friend who has 60 DV tapes and still plays them with this camcorder after giving up on trying to convert them. Hes not very tech oriented and was considering having a professional do it. Should be good for a few pints.

Just so you know this is an entirely different science. The best method here is a firewire cable (and port), capture software (I recommend WinDV) and working with DV (not MPEG-2). However, almost any consumer editor worth its salt can do DV. For simple lossless cuts and joins on DV you can also use VirtualDub (but enable Video -> Direct stream copy).

For MPEG-2/DvD it's easy to just drop the finished DV result into an MPEG-2 encoder and then an author tool. But for these types of projects it's always recommended to keep the DV Source for archiving (or even the tapes).

[robjv1]

Yes, my scenario is typically correcting displaced frames when working in MPEG2 with a DVD recorder. Often times I'll do a version of a VHS tape with the TBC on -- but that will occasionally result in jitter for a few frames here and there (the "bouncing frame" effect). I redo those parts with the TBC off, color match them and edit them in -- but the position of the frame with the TBC off is slightly different. I can usually hide it in a cut, but it's not always possible for portions of video that have lots of fades instead of cuts. So you have to shift the frame -- usually down and to the left -- to match the other frames around it.

In the past, because of MPEG Video Wizards crummy encoder, that involved gathering all of the frames together in a project file, exporting it to VFAPI and then re-encoding it with Procoder or MainConcept Reference, and then re-editing those frames back into the original file.

Now at least -- the encoder is up to par enough that I can just do it all right in MPEG Video Wizard and save some time.

[PuzZLeR]

Yes, my scenario is typically correcting displaced frames when working in MPEG2 with a DVD recorder. Often times I'll do a version of a VHS tape with the TBC on -- but that will occasionally result in jitter for a few frames here and there (the "bouncing frame" effect). I redo those parts with the TBC off, color match them and edit them in -- but the position of the frame with the TBC off is slightly different. I can usually hide it in a cut, but it's not always possible for portions of video that have lots of fades instead of cuts. So you have to shift the frame -- usually down and to the left -- to match the other frames around it.

In the past, because of MPEG Video Wizards crummy encoder, that involved gathering all of the frames together in a project file, exporting it to VFAPI and then re-encoding it with Procoder or MainConcept Reference, and then re-editing those frames back into the original file.

Now at least -- the encoder is up to par enough that I can just do it all right in MPEG Video Wizard and save some time.

This sounds like a case where a built-in good encoder would be indeed effective in Womble.

I understand what you're trying to do, as I too work with VHS -> MPEG-2 content with the TBC. I've seen this too. But to the average person, this surgery would be nightmarish so you, and sometimes me, are a minority in this case.

Yeah, if you had to work with Womble's built-in older, horrid encoder, the result would look very bad with various frames.

[robjv1]

This sounds like a case where a built-in good encoder would be indeed effective in Womble.

I understand what you're trying to do, as I too work with VHS -> MPEG-2 content with the TBC. I've seen this too. But to the average person, this surgery would be nightmarish so you, and sometimes me, are a minority in this case.

Yeah, if you had to work with Womble's built-in older, horrid encoder, the result would look very bad with various frames.

No doubt about this! It would certainly be a feature upgrade for a very small minority, but would be much appreciated.

On a positive note, I ran a few tests with the MainConcept encoder version of MPEG Video Wizard and it looks good! A big, big improvement over the previous version. I can live with this for most circumstances.