Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: I don't get it...

  1. #1

    Default I don't get it...

    For the past year i have been video using a Sony VX2100 and DV tapes. The resolution is very high at 720x576. I use Sony Vegas and edit using the PAL 25fps, 720x576, set to best and no qualiy loss. I can render to AVI DV which is very good although for DVD it seems that Mpeg2 is the standard. The Mpeg2 files i create that are 720x576 are simply not as good as commercial movies, do they use Mpeg2 or some other format? (as from what i have read, DVD players only read Mpeg2 and Mpeg2 is a standard that is not as good as AVI DV or Divx for example).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    East Kilbride, Scotland
    Posts
    1,002

    Default

    MPEG2 is the standard for DVDs. Quality will depend wholly upon the bit rate at which you convert your AVI files. The maximum bit rate for MPEG2 on a DVD is 8000Kbps. This will give you about an hour on a single DVD.

    Also please bear in mind that the MPEG video will not look quite as sharp on a PC monitor as it will on TV.

    Good luck

    COMPAQ something or other with 500Gb Boot Disk, 1Tb external Firewire Disk, 4Gb Memory and a super duper sound card, 19" TFT Monitor etc etc etc
    Sony TRV33e : Sony TRV310e : Canon XM2
    Sony Vegas Studio editions to v11

    Remember, there is always more to learn than there is to teach.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thanks for that.

  4. #4

    Default

    Something else:

    Why is it Mpeg2 created from DV 720x576 source looks better then Mpeg2 vreated from Still 720x576 source (an image created in Photoshop for example).

    At the moment the only thing i can think of is the interlace side of things.
    DV is interlaced where as a still created in Photoshop is non interlaced. So maybe there is a way of making an interlaced still (one idea i had was to make the still 720x1152).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,514
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Did you import a compressed (eg JPG) or uncompressed image?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Peters
    Did you import a compressed (eg JPG) or uncompressed image?
    I prefer .BMP files as they do not have the compression issues that come with .JPG

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,514
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobadog
    (one idea i had was to make the still 720x1152).
    If you haven't tried, that won't work. Interlaced frames are still 720*576, but made up of two fields in alternating lines.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Peters
    Quote Originally Posted by dobadog
    (one idea i had was to make the still 720x1152).
    If you haven't tried, that won't work. Interlaced frames are still 720*576, but made up of two fields in alternating lines.
    So i guess there must be away of of creating stills from 720x1152 to created 720x576 interlaced stills.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,514
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    No. If you really wanted to and worked out how to dot it, it would be 576/2. Most apps have something like "optimise stills".

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    115

    Default

    on ur stills make sure you pick the right settings at the start, and always use RGB for screen based work, and CYMK for print based...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •