Hi

Can anyone tell me if there is a noticable difference in
quality between capturing as DV-AVI (720 x 480) and
Windows Media Video (640 x480)?

I thought the WMV capture was a higher quality because it
said "Best Qulity for palyback on my computer". I made a
20 minute video with MM2 which is for output to DVD. When
I converted it using a utility the quality was terrible.

Will I get a better result capturing and saving the clips
as DV-AVI?

Yes,

DV-AVI is the way to go for capturing

PapaJohn
www.papajohn.org


"Videomonkey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:001b01c355f8$ed4a0f50$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi
>
> Can anyone tell me if there is a noticable difference in
> quality between capturing as DV-AVI (720 x 480) and
> Windows Media Video (640 x480)?
>
> I thought the WMV capture was a higher quality because it
> said "Best Qulity for palyback on my computer". I made a
> 20 minute video with MM2 which is for output to DVD. When
> I converted it using a utility the quality was terrible.
>
> Will I get a better result capturing and saving the clips
> as DV-AVI?

Would these steps also apply to VCDs (MPG1)?

Seems logical, but thought I'd confirm.


>-----Original Message-----
>Just to elaborate on Papa John's response...
>
>"Best Quality" is misleading. When you convert a video
to WMV, you are
>compressing it, and you will lose some quality. DV-AVI
is uncompressed so
>absolutely no quality is lost.
>
>The later, when you convert to MPEG2 for DVD burning,
that is another lossy
>compression step. So the video quality is even worse.
>
>You'll get the best quality DVDs if you follow these
steps:
>
>1. Capture in DV-AVI format.
>2. Save edited movie in DV-AVI format.
>3. Encode to MPEG2 using a high-quality encoder
(TMPGEnc).
>4. Author & burn the DVD with a program that will NOT
re-encode the video.
>
>Using the above process, you only compress your video
once -- the final
>product.
>
>However, if you were to capture in WMV, then save your
edited movie in WMV,
>then convert to MPEG2 for DVD, you'll be compressing the
video THREE times.
>It will definitely look like crap.
>
>-Bob
>
>
>"PapaJohn (MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Yes,
>>
>> DV-AVI is the way to go for capturing
>>
>> PapaJohn
>> www.papajohn.org
>>
>>
>> "Videomonkey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>> news:001b01c355f8$ed4a0f50$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Can anyone tell me if there is a noticable
difference in
>> > quality between capturing as DV-AVI (720 x 480) and
>> > Windows Media Video (640 x480)?
>> >
>> > I thought the WMV capture was a higher quality
because it
>> > said "Best Qulity for palyback on my computer". I
made a
>> > 20 minute video with MM2 which is for output to DVD.
When
>> > I converted it using a utility the quality was
terrible.
>> >
>> > Will I get a better result capturing and saving the
clips
>> > as DV-AVI?
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>

Yes, in theory it would apply to VCDs too. But the lower quality of a VCD
might make the approach overkill, with minimal benefit.

PapaJohn


"Cuyler" <orion404@yahoo`com> wrote in message
news:011601c356c6$f7d52440$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Would these steps also apply to VCDs (MPG1)?
>
> Seems logical, but thought I'd confirm.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Just to elaborate on Papa John's response...
> >
> >"Best Quality" is misleading. When you convert a video
> to WMV, you are
> >compressing it, and you will lose some quality. DV-AVI
> is uncompressed so
> >absolutely no quality is lost.
> >
> >The later, when you convert to MPEG2 for DVD burning,
> that is another lossy
> >compression step. So the video quality is even worse.
> >
> >You'll get the best quality DVDs if you follow these
> steps:
> >
> >1. Capture in DV-AVI format.
> >2. Save edited movie in DV-AVI format.
> >3. Encode to MPEG2 using a high-quality encoder
> (TMPGEnc).
> >4. Author & burn the DVD with a program that will NOT
> re-encode the video.
> >
> >Using the above process, you only compress your video
> once -- the final
> >product.
> >
> >However, if you were to capture in WMV, then save your
> edited movie in WMV,
> >then convert to MPEG2 for DVD, you'll be compressing the
> video THREE times.
> >It will definitely look like crap.
> >
> >-Bob
> >
> >
> >"PapaJohn (MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Yes,
> >>
> >> DV-AVI is the way to go for capturing
> >>
> >> PapaJohn
> >> www.papajohn.org
> >>
> >>
> >> "Videomonkey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message
> >> news:001b01c355f8$ed4a0f50$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > Can anyone tell me if there is a noticable
> difference in
> >> > quality between capturing as DV-AVI (720 x 480) and
> >> > Windows Media Video (640 x480)?
> >> >
> >> > I thought the WMV capture was a higher quality
> because it
> >> > said "Best Qulity for palyback on my computer". I
> made a
> >> > 20 minute video with MM2 which is for output to DVD.
> When
> >> > I converted it using a utility the quality was
> terrible.
> >> >
> >> > Will I get a better result capturing and saving the
> clips
> >> > as DV-AVI?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Have TMPGEnc generate MPEG-1 Layer II Audio (MP2), instead of Linear PCM
Audio. Does Roxio require separate audio & video streams? If not, you can
have TMPGEnc create one system file that contains both the MPEG-2 video and
the MPEG-1 Layer II audio.

If I don't need to do any editing of the video, I use Ulead DVD Movie
Factory 2.0 to author the DVD. If I need to do any minor editing, I use
TMPGEnc DVD Author to author the DVD. Although both of these programs are
capable of burning the DVD, I like to use Nero 5.5 Burning ROM to do the
actual burning.

-Bob


"Danny Deger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bgi8u4$ovir6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What software do you use to Author and burn? I am using Roxio and I can't
> get it to burn the m2v and wav file that TMPGEnc generates. Any ideas?
>
> Danny Deger
>
> "Bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Just to elaborate on Papa John's response...
> >
> > "Best Quality" is misleading. When you convert a video to WMV, you are
> > compressing it, and you will lose some quality. DV-AVI is uncompressed
so
> > absolutely no quality is lost.
> >
> > The later, when you convert to MPEG2 for DVD burning, that is another
> lossy
> > compression step. So the video quality is even worse.
> >
> > You'll get the best quality DVDs if you follow these steps:
> >
> > 1. Capture in DV-AVI format.
> > 2. Save edited movie in DV-AVI format.
> > 3. Encode to MPEG2 using a high-quality encoder (TMPGEnc).
> > 4. Author & burn the DVD with a program that will NOT re-encode the
> video.
> >
> > Using the above process, you only compress your video once -- the final
> > product.
> >
> > However, if you were to capture in WMV, then save your edited movie in
> WMV,
> > then convert to MPEG2 for DVD, you'll be compressing the video THREE
> times.
> > It will definitely look like crap.
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> >
> > "PapaJohn (MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Yes,
> > >
> > > DV-AVI is the way to go for capturing
> > >
> > > PapaJohn
> > > www.papajohn.org
> > >
> > >
> > > "Videomonkey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:001b01c355f8$ed4a0f50$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone tell me if there is a noticable difference in
> > > > quality between capturing as DV-AVI (720 x 480) and
> > > > Windows Media Video (640 x480)?
> > > >
> > > > I thought the WMV capture was a higher quality because it
> > > > said "Best Qulity for palyback on my computer". I made a
> > > > 20 minute video with MM2 which is for output to DVD. When
> > > > I converted it using a utility the quality was terrible.
> > > >
> > > > Will I get a better result capturing and saving the clips
> > > > as DV-AVI?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>