«

Hi guys,

Using Prem Pro, I've worked out that encoding to MPEG is of far better
quality then doing it to AVI first, certainly if the use of stills is
involved...

....when encoded to AVI, the stills look dreadful, compared with erfect
quality from MPEG2.

Any ideas why this is?

I think I will continue to convert to MPEG anyway because Encore need to
transcode it in order to burn the DVD.

Does anyone know of any goo tutorials for Encore? The DVD I made didn't seem
to work properly on some DVD players and this maybe becasue the setting in
encore said DVD Media suitable for Computer DVD players.

How do I change this to suit all DVD players?

Thanks guys,

T.

Hi there,

"Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c1qe87$a2k$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi guys,
>
> Using Prem Pro, I've worked out that encoding to MPEG is of far better
> quality then doing it to AVI first, certainly if the use of stills is
> involved...

I have always understood that for archive purposes it was always better
to render to AVI because there is no substation of pixels and averaging out.

> ...when encoded to AVI, the stills look dreadful, compared with erfect
> quality from MPEG2.
>
> Any ideas why this is?

Short answer no, but a question...what size in pixels are these still
images? If they are less than 720 x 576 an AVI format image will result in
pixel duplication.....The Chunky Look....for arguments sake...lets say your
still image is half the width and half the height.....what the rendered AVI
file will have is an approximation of four pixels for every one in the
original picture....I say approximation because none of them will be exactly
the same colour as the original...I am told that there is no algorithm that
will sort this out when going to AVI...but as we know there are very
sophisticated algorithm's for MPEG images I guess that's why our
hypothetical image would look better.

All the best...John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org

In message <n060c.4588$(E-Mail Removed)>, John Kelly
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Hi there,
>
>"Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:c1qe87$a2k$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Using Prem Pro, I've worked out that encoding to MPEG is of far better
>> quality then doing it to AVI first, certainly if the use of stills is
>> involved...
>
Two things should be explained to Tom.

Firstly, are you talking MPEG-1, MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 ?
"MPEG" doesn't mean a thing.

Your use of AVI is even more meaningless, since AVI is simply a
container for any format. An AVI file can contain MPEG-1, MPEG-2 or
MPEG-4, DV or, for that matter anything.

If you don't know what type of format is in your AVI then you should get
YAAI from http://yaai.sourceforge.net

> I have always understood that for archive purposes it was always better
>to render to AVI because there is no substation of pixels and averaging out.
>
See above. Your understanding, Tom, is meaningless, but the best format
to archive in is DV, since you then lose no quality.

>> ...when encoded to AVI, the stills look dreadful, compared with erfect
>> quality from MPEG2.
>>
See above (again).

>> Any ideas why this is?
>
> Short answer no, but a question...what size in pixels are these still
>images? If they are less than 720 x 576 an AVI format image will result in
>pixel duplication.....The Chunky Look....for arguments sake...lets say your
>still image is half the width and half the height.....what the rendered AVI
>file will have is an approximation of four pixels for every one in the
>original picture....I say approximation because none of them will be exactly
>the same colour as the original...I am told that there is no algorithm that
>will sort this out when going to AVI...but as we know there are very
>sophisticated algorithm's for MPEG images I guess that's why our
>hypothetical image would look better.
>
Perhaps you should do a little research as to what AVI is as well, John
:-)
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

> Firstly, are you talking MPEG-1, MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 ?
> "MPEG" doesn't mean a thing.

Then I guess Moving Picture Experts Group doesn't mean anything to you
either.

> Your use of AVI is even more meaningless, since AVI is simply a
> container for any format. An AVI file can contain MPEG-1, MPEG-2 or
> MPEG-4, DV or, for that matter anything.

AVI is _not_ a "container". It is a file format developed my M$,
specifically it stands for Audio Video Interleaved.

> If you don't know what type of format is in your AVI then you should
get
> YAAI from http://yaai.sourceforge.net
>
> > I have always understood that for archive purposes it was always
better
> >to render to AVI because there is no substation of pixels and
averaging out.
> >
> See above. Your understanding, Tom, is meaningless, but the best
format
> to archive in is DV, since you then lose no quality.

Uh, no. DV is a compressed format. AVI with _no_ compression is the
ideal archive format.

> Perhaps you should do a little research as to what AVI is as well,
John

Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

> :-)

A smiley face, how cute... especially on Usenet. At least you didn't top
post. <vbseg>

To the OP,

Not sure if your using motion with the stills but you might want to
check out this thread:

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/w...7652@.2ccffb6d

Not sure it'll help but you might want to check it out. Some seem to
have better luck with TIFF format rather the JPEG.

Also, here's a good sight for tutorials, the Premier ones are excellent.
Can't speak to the Encore ones but I'd bet they are excellent as well.

Good luck!

> Also, here's a good sight for tutorials, the Premier ones are
excellent.
> Can't speak to the Encore ones but I'd bet they are excellent as well.

Forgot the paste:

http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/videotut...tut_encore.htm

In message <so80c.9626$(E-Mail Removed)>, Chuck U. Farley
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

Sigh....

Why Oh Why do we continually get these geeks who only post here to
massage their egos?

In case you have difficulty, the "rec" means recreational, which should
suggest (to anyone with a clue) that here we aren't ego-jerking as you
seem to be doing, but simplifying things for those who don't want
complicated (though accurate) explanations.

>AVI is _not_ a "container". It is a file format developed my M$,
>specifically it stands for Audio Video Interleaved.

"Container" is a term that the layman will understand - especially in
the context of AVIs. If you weren't so into ego-jerking yourself, you'd
appreciate that.

AVIs are very complex for those here (who are non-geeks), and the
terminology that I have used well explains the concept.

And if you had a clue, you might have noticed that many folk here do
indeed (as the OP does) use the term "MPEG" as a generic term. Since
virtually everyone here (apart from the visiting ego-jerking geeks)
aren't in the least bit interested in technical explanations and
descriptions, only want an unsophisticated understanding of what goes
on.

The very fact that you go on about top/bottom posting (when no one had
done so) tells us all that you're nothing but a techno-troll.

Now please go away and let us get on with helping other non-geeks.

--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

Chuck U. Farley wrote:

> AVI is _not_ a "container". It is a file format developed
> my M$, specifically it stands for Audio Video Interleaved.

Microsoft calls AVI and ASF "container formats" themselves:

An excerpt from the page http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-
us/directx9_c/directx/htm/thedirectshowsdkandthewindowsmediafor
matsdk.asp>:

--- 8< ---

"If you are encoding or decoding Windows Media-based content that is
encapsulated in ASF files, the Windows Media Format SDK is recommended.
However, if you want to use the Windows Media Audio and Video codecs to
compress media for use in other container formats (such as AVI), you
must access the codecs directly."

--- 8< ---

--
znark

> In case you have difficulty, the "rec" means recreational, which
should
> suggest (to anyone with a clue) that here we aren't ego-jerking as you
> seem to be doing, but simplifying things for those who don't want
> complicated (though accurate) explanations.

Why didn't you just say you didn't know what you were talking about to
begin with? I always thought people came to ngs to get _correct_ answers
to their questions, not flippant, smart ass generalities that are wrong
and don't even address the question at hand. The information you provide
was, in fact, _inaccurate_.

> >AVI is _not_ a "container". It is a file format developed my M$,
> >specifically it stands for Audio Video Interleaved.
>
> "Container" is a term that the layman will understand - especially in
> the context of AVIs. If you weren't so into ego-jerking yourself,
you'd
> appreciate that.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you with the facts. "Ego-jerking" aside,
I've found that most people in this ng aren't as ignorant as you are. At
least when answering questions, most don't put fingers to the keyboard
unless they actually _know_ what they're talking about. You might want
to try that sometime. As to "ego-jerking", re-read your post smart ass,
specifically:

""MPEG" doesn't mean a thing"

"Your use of AVI is even more meaningless"

"Your understanding, Tom, is meaningless"

"Perhaps you should do a little research as to what AVI is as well,
John"

If your post actually contained factual information, I would have
overlooked it. But when your a smart ass _and_ you don't know what
you're talking about, I just couldn't ignore it. And btw moron, an AVI
file _cannot_ contain mpeg, mp3 or DV content, the compressed data is
_converted_ to avi format.

> AVIs are very complex for those here (who are non-geeks), and the
> terminology that I have used well explains the concept.

You didn't answer _anything_ that was in the original post. Just a bunch
of flippant, smart ass remarks that had nothing whatsoever to do with
the question. And you were _wrong_ in what little information you did
provide.


> And if you had a clue, you might have noticed that many folk here do
> indeed (as the OP does) use the term "MPEG" as a generic term. Since
> virtually everyone here (apart from the visiting ego-jerking geeks)
> aren't in the least bit interested in technical explanations and
> descriptions, only want an unsophisticated understanding of what goes
> on.

I don't have a problem with people who use generic terminology... just
people who post smart ass replies to legitimate questions who don't know
what they're talking about. That's why I responded to you.

> The very fact that you go on about top/bottom posting (when no one had
> done so) tells us all that you're nothing but a techno-troll.
>
> Now please go away and let us get on with helping other non-geeks.

You don't help _anyone_ by giving incorrect answers. And by being a
smart ass, you just draw the attention of people like me, who actually
_know_ what they're talking about. So the next time you feel the need to
post flippant, smart ass remarks that clearly demonstrate your
ignorance, think twice.

Because I'll be there to bitch slap you.

In message <r_90c.37796$(E-Mail Removed)>, Chuck U.
Farley <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
Snipped....

>If your post actually contained factual information, I would have
>overlooked it. But when your a smart ass _and_ you don't know what
>you're talking about, I just couldn't ignore it. And btw moron, an AVI
>file _cannot_ contain mpeg, mp3 or DV content, the compressed data is
>_converted_ to avi format.

Until you came out with this, I thought that you were an ego-jerking
geek who couldn't KISS.

Now I know that you're totally clueless.

If you actually believe what you've asserted above, perhaps you could
explain what is contained in the movi list of an AVI file? There, smack
my hand - I've used that terrible word "contain" again.....

You might also explain why the FOURCC code is appended by the two-byte
code indicating the type of data that is contained in what follows (e.g.
db, dc) ?

You might also like to explain (for example) what the FOURCC codes Mx2V,
Mx2A, Mx4V and Mx4A indicate?

In fact, the whole ethos of AVI is to allow any data to be stored/used
in such a way that the type of compression can be identified. And
because some codecs behave in odd ways, the particular codec is
identified. If no compression is used then a FOURCC starting with '00'
can be used (raw data).

Anyway all this is totally out of context.

I'd suggest that you go to the comp.* newsgroups where you'll be more
readily recognised as being clueless as you are.

Since you are contributing nothing except massaging your ego, off you
go...
PLONK...
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

In message <bD90c.382$(E-Mail Removed)>, Jukka Aho
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chuck U. Farley wrote:
>
>> AVI is _not_ a "container". It is a file format developed
>> my M$, specifically it stands for Audio Video Interleaved.
>
>Microsoft calls AVI and ASF "container formats" themselves:
>
>An excerpt from the page http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-
>us/directx9_c/directx/htm/thedirectshowsdkandthewindowsmediafor
>matsdk.asp>:
>
>--- 8< ---
>
>"If you are encoding or decoding Windows Media-based content that is
>encapsulated in ASF files, the Windows Media Format SDK is recommended.
>However, if you want to use the Windows Media Audio and Video codecs to
>compress media for use in other container formats (such as AVI), you
>must access the codecs directly."
>
Thanks for that Jukka.

From what stones do these idiots emerge from?
I hate to say it, but why are so many of these people from the USA?
Is it something they eat over there? Could it be something to do with GM
crops?
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com