Best result for DVD?

Hi,

Which would result in a better quality DVD (DV footage in 4:3, no menus):

1. Bring my QT file into Compressor for MPEG 2 and then DVD Studio Pro

2. Using Print to Video from FCP timeline, firewire to my deck, then into a set-top DVD recorder.

Thanks for any input.

P.

Use Compressor and DVD Studio Pro. DVD recorders were not designed for flawless real-time output, and they are much, much more prone to not playing at all or playing back with problems. I've received many a disc that was created this way and will not behave properly. With a proper DVD project, you can also burn discs much faster after the initial encoding, and the discs will be more consistent.


www.derekmok.com

I drag a QT Reference file into iDVD on Best Performance (background encoding). No need for MOPEG2 / DVDSPro. Done.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Ah. Options... You can do the encoding directly in DVDSP. I did a short tutorial here. Drag the QT movie into DVDSP, instead of the Mpeg2/dolby digital file:

[strypesinpost.com]

Usually I'd go through Compressor, as that gives me pretty good quality.



www.strypesinpost.com

Thanks for the advice.

Sounds like going from FCP timeline out to the DVD recorder is not the best way.

On a side note, I must say though that after burning a few hundred DVDs in my Pioneer and Panasonic recorders, I haven't had any returned as unplayable. I do a lot of transferring old VHS and 8mm film to DVD for clients, and it works great for that task.

Cheers,

Paul C.

Just for the record chaps, the best workflow for quality results is to go via Compressor (or any other dedicated encoder, such as Cinemacraft), and create MPEG2 files for the video, and Dolby Digital for the audio (AC3). There are several very good reasons for this workflow:

1 - DVDSP has an encoder that is not very accurate. It *does* encode, but is meant for the graphics on menus. Just because it can do video encodes doesn't mean it should... The only time the DVDSP encoder has proved useful is when you want a CBR encode because you are making a mixed angle or a multi angle disc. In all other cases it really isn't as capable as Compressor. It'll do the job, but it won't be efficient.

2 - AC3 files are so much smaller, and have such a low bandwidth by comparison to an unencoded (PCM or WAV) file. This is important because a smaller file on the disc leaves more room for the video to fit in to. Audio compression is vastly more efficient than video compression, and the resulting AC3 file will sound identical to the original for everyone except those who have a trained ear... and very good audio equipment! The more space you leave for the video the higher the bitrate you can use, meaning the final quality will be higher. A further thought is that discs using AC3 audio are generally more compatible to a wider range of players (especially important with discs burned from your mac) as the bandwidth is less. When creating a DVD by burning, the ceiling bitrate is theoretically 10.08Mbps for video and audio combined, but in practice anything over 7.5 - 8mbps can cause problems on some players. If the video element contains fast action, pans, zooms, fades or tricky sections (water shimmering, leaves on trees blowing in the wind, clouds racing across the sky, etc) then you need as much of the bitrate as you can get on these sections. Since PCM or WAV uses approx. 1.5Mbps, you really do need to encode to AC3 (stereo can be as low as 192Kbps without significant audio loss).

3 - Efficient workflows are generally better than quick workflows. It is more efficient to be authoring the disc structure in DVDSP whilst Compressor is creating the final files. You wait less time at the build stage since the encoding is already done.

iDVD is already set up for simple disc creation - it uses predetermined settings in the compression engine, and occasionally, I've seen the 'Best' motion estimation create a lot of artefacts. This seems to happen more with poor quality footage, my theory is that it finds the flaws and encodes them really accurately, resulting in clear artefacts on the final output. For this reason, when I am dubious about the footage, I use the 'Better' setting instead. I have only anecdotal evidence to support the theory, but it seems to hold up all the same :-)

External recorders - a similar case to iDVD in that they crunch everything down to fit on a single disc. Useful for previews and so on, but unlikely to get high quality results when you compare to tools like Cinemacraft. I guess it comes down to what you need/want...

Workflow therefore ought to be capture/edit/compress/author, using the right tools at each stage.

--

lafcpug mod