8813 kb/sec is a pretty good bitrate for DVD files, Kurvah! I don't think you'll find much better than that.
The DVD specs limit one to 9.8kbps bit-rate, for a combined Audio & Video. You cannot exceed that to have a fully in-spec. file. This is for the absolute high "spikes," in the encoding process.
Depending on one's Audio bit-rate, something in the range of 8kbps is near the top. Now, there are some other considerations:
1.) some folk have problems with set-top players not handling anything above 7, all that well.
2.) Robert Johnson tested PE and found the ultimate quality setting was somewhere around 7.8, IIRC. Most of his finding appear in articles on Muvipix..
There are better encoders, and Hollywood uses these. Some allow up to 20 passes to squeeze the maximum out of each file. These, however, cost upward to the GNP of many small countries, and the folk, who run them have many years of experience at that level. They do nothing but transcodes day in, and day out.
PE is likely to not have problems with other applications on your computer, so long as none overwrites the Adobe Main Concept CODEC (no guarantees with any other application). Only hang up can be with applications, that contain packet-writing modules, that seize control of one's burner(s). Adobe programs want 100% control of these, and usually throw errors, or just cannot find the burners, if one has something like Nero's InCD, or Roxio's DLA. These should not be installed (the packet-writing module).
Unfortunately, I cannot directly comment on PE's encoding, as I use Adobe Encore for all of my Transcoding, and usually use it to Burn the DVD's.
As far as the quality of a similar bit of video, there are two main things to consider: the optics and the sensors, with different cameras. It is likely not an issue of the bit-rate of the two files, but the cameras, that produced the footage.
Great information!! Thanks for taking the time to respond.
If anyone else can elaborate on the below message or add any more nuggets of knowledge, that would be great. Just to speculate on the below question, does a camcorder's smaller pixels get combined to make up 1 of the 345,600 pixels in a 720x480 frame?
- I have a DVD of a youth football game made by another dad. His camcorder was one of the best about 3 years ago and the DVD looks way better than what my camcorder can do. GSpot says his DVD has a average bit rate of 8000 kb/sec & 0.772 bits-pixel/frame (GSpot Quality measurement). My DVD files have higher bit rate and bits-pixel/frame measurements than his, but his looks way better. If the standard definition screen is 720x480 pixels, then there are a total of 345,600 pixels in a frame? If my DCR-SR220 has 1,120,000 actual pixels at 4:3, then my camcorder should be well above the 345,600 pixels in a SD 720x480 frame? I am sure there is more to it than this and that is what I am trying to find out.
I came across a great article which answers my above question about why the other dad's video was better looking than mine, even though my Gspot numbers were better. I add it here in case others read this thread with the same questions.