Skip navigation
texber2012
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.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2013 11:31 AM   in reply to texber2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good point, Jeff.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 12, 2013 6:45 AM   in reply to texber2012

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

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

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

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2013 1:31 PM   in reply to Ann Bens

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

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points