Skip navigation

Encore

texber2012 Calculating status...

Currently Being Moderated

Best Burn Quality Encore CS 5.1

Feb 6, 2013 11:07 AM

Tags: #transcoding #cs5.1

As I understand there are at least three ways to move a video from Premiere Pro to Encore: (1) move sequence via dynamic link (2) Make a movie in Premiere Pro (avi perhaps) then import in Encore for final transcoding and (3) Transcode in Premiere Pro. Which method will result in the best quality DVD, or is there no noticable difference? Input is appreciated. Thanks.

1502 Views 22 Replies Latest reply: Matt Dubuque, Feb 18, 2013 1:31 PM

Replies

Currently Being Moderated

1. John T Smith,

Feb 6, 2013 11:31 AM in reply to texber2012

Report

My personal choice is to export Widescreen DV AVI from PPro (AVCHD source) and then let Encore do automatic transcoding when building my DVD image... so I let Encore take care of all the calculation of "best fit" of movie length to selected single or dual layer disc

Other people prefer to export MPEG2 DVD from PPro, and then give the individual video and audio files to Encore for authoring

I do NOT use Dynamic Link, because I have read of some problems
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/936216
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/938108
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/938549
Encoding notes http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1094516

I also have Encore create an ISO image and use http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=download to write that ISO to disc, since Imgburn gives me much more control

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

2. Jim Simon,

Feb 6, 2013 5:39 PM in reply to texber2012

Report

There is a fourth way which actually produces the 'best' quality.

4. Export out a lossless Intermediate and use HC Encoder's CQ mode to create a DVD compliant .m2v file.

http://www.bitburners.com/hc-encoder/

The other three are pretty equal as far as quality goes.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

3. texber2012,

Feb 6, 2013 11:49 PM in reply to Jim Simon

Report

Jim Simon - Thanks for your input. Your suggestion is a new one for me, will give it a try. For lossless intermediate export - which codec do you suggest (Animation, Cinepak or other)?

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

4. SAFEHARBOR11,

Feb 7, 2013 7:41 AM in reply to texber2012

Report

I use the Lagarith "visually lossless" .avi codec as an intermediate when working with HC Encoder. I believe when you export, look at the Codec settings and you must use either YUY2 or YV12 mode, not default RGB.

Thanks

Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

5. Jim Simon,

Feb 7, 2013 1:36 PM in reply to SAFEHARBOR11

Report

Lagarith is actually mathematically lossless. It's a good option.

I use the UT codec myself, just because it encodes faster in HC Encoder than Lags does.

http://umezawa.dyndns.info/archive/utvideo/

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

6. texber2012,

Feb 7, 2013 9:53 PM in reply to Jim Simon

Report

A question for the HC Encoder users - is the quality significantly better than other methods to burn DVDs.? I am curious, why use the HC Encoder since its use adds several steps to the process, i.e. the HC Encoder does not recognize avi format, thus Avithinth or some other program must be used to open the avi files in the decoder. Am I missing something?

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

7. Alan Craven,

Feb 8, 2013 12:38 AM in reply to texber2012

Report

Another alternative which gives high quality results is to down-scale the exported Lagarith AVI using Virtualdub with the Lanczos preset to an SD Lagarith AVI. Then export this from Premiere as a DVD legal file for Encore.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

8. Ann Bens,

Feb 8, 2013 6:36 AM in reply to Alan Craven

Report

I used to use the HC encoder. But been framserving to Tmpgenc for quite some time now. Found it just as good as the HC encoder. Saves me a few steps in the process.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

9. texber2012,

Feb 9, 2013 12:02 PM in reply to Alan Craven

Report

Thanks to all for the input, good stuff.

One last question. Where can the Lanczos preset be found? My web search was not successful. Thanks.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

10. texber2012,

Feb 9, 2013 4:18 PM in reply to texber2012

Report

Re request for Lanczos preset location - I found it.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

11. Alan Craven,

Feb 9, 2013 11:59 PM in reply to texber2012

Report

Open your file in VDub, select Video>Filter>Resize and add the resize filter, with absolute pixels set at 720x576 (I am PAL), Aspect Ratio disabled, and filter Mode Lanczos3; check Interlaced as appropriate.

Then select Video>Colour Depth and set Decompression format to Auto, and Output Format to Same as decompression format.

Now select Video>Compression and select the Lagarith Lossless Codec.

Press F7 to start encoding.

This will produce a huge file, but the down-scaling quality is very good indeed.

You will have to put this file back into Premiere and use Interpret footage to bring it back to 16x9, then export for DVD.

If you do not already have the Lagarith codec installed on your system, you will have to download it and install it first. UT is an alternative lossless codec you could use - many people prefer it.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

12. Jim Simon,

Feb 10, 2013 9:42 AM in reply to texber2012

Report

is {HC Encoder] quality significantly better than other methods to burn DVDs.?

Significantly better? No. Noticeably better? Yes.

But it's a subtle improvement that frankly most people will never notice, especially without a direct comparison.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

13. SAFEHARBOR11,

Feb 11, 2013 9:46 AM in reply to Jim Simon

Report

I would put forth that at lower bitrates, you may see more of a benefit. I had to do several dance recital DVDs at around 2.5 hours each, and saw quite a difference in quality in that instance.

Jeff

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

14. Jim Simon,

Feb 11, 2013 10:32 AM in reply to SAFEHARBOR11

Report

Good point, Jeff.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

15. texber2012,

Feb 11, 2013 10:32 PM in reply to SAFEHARBOR11

Report

Jim Simon - Re lower bit rates - would you please expand on this. Thanks.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

16. SAFEHARBOR11,

Feb 12, 2013 6:45 AM in reply to texber2012

Report

If encoding a clean source video at higher bitrates like 6, 7, or 8, most any encoder will produce decent results.

The real test is at lower quality settings like 4.5, or 4, or 3.7...then the true quality of the encoder becomes more apparent

Jeff

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

17. texber2012,

Feb 12, 2013 9:56 AM in reply to SAFEHARBOR11

Report

Thank you for the additional info. I am using Adobe Media Encoder. Lower bitrates results in smaller files. I would have thought smaller files = lower quality. Obviously I'm missing something (for instance: what exactly does "clean source video" mean?). WIll try encoding with smaller bit rates and see what the results look like. Thanks again for all the good info you folks are providing.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

18. SAFEHARBOR11,

Feb 12, 2013 10:05 AM in reply to texber2012

Report

You misunderstood what Jim and I were saying. When I said HC Encoder can produce better results at lower bitrates, I meant in comparison to using AME. Not that lower bitrates look better than higher bitrates. Was saying that when comparing quality, it is harder to see a difference at high bitrates, but more obvious when making longer videos at lower data rates.

And by "clean video source", I mean a nice picture. If you are working from an old VHS tape that is grainy and nasty, then it's going to look bad no matter what. If you have a clear, sharp video to begin with, it will just encode better. More picture, less noise. Noise in an image does not compress well and uses up precious bandwidth.

Hope that clarifies, sorry for any confusion

Jeff

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

19. texber2012,

Feb 12, 2013 10:20 AM in reply to SAFEHARBOR11

Report

Like I said: "obviously I'm missing something," and I was. Thank you very much for the clarification.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

20. Matt Dubuque,

Feb 18, 2013 8:45 AM in reply to Ann Bens

Report

Hello,

This Tmpgenc looks pretty interesting.

However, so many of these workflows seem carefully tailored to a Windows environment.

I have a MacPro. Have similar high quality efforts been made in the Mac arena?

I've been searching and have not had much success.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Matt Dubuque, 100 Trees

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

21. Ann Bens,

Feb 18, 2013 12:39 PM in reply to Matt Dubuque

Report

I am a pc girl, so unfortunately i cannot tell you anything about a workflow for the mac. Sorry

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

22. Matt Dubuque,

Feb 18, 2013 1:31 PM in reply to Ann Bens

Report

Yes, I seem to be in the clear minority. Oh well.

|
Mark as: