Exporting For Blu-ray

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Gary Eickmeier, May 22, 2013.

  1. I have found that exporting out of the project to an MPEG-2 Blu-ray file
    gives me a great high def video that does not need to be transcoded in the
    disc authoring program (Encore), just goes to disc very quickly.

    I usually shoot in 60i, but last weekend I wanted to try 60p and see how
    that looked and edited and exported. I shot a couple of shots at 1920 x 1080
    60p at the 28 mb/sec bitrate. I then brought up a project (Premiere Pro CS4)
    in 60p and mixed some 60i and 60p footage on the timeline for comparison.

    When I exported to an h.264 file I found that there was no codec for 60p,
    just either 1920 x 1080 60i or else you could do 1920 x 1080 24p or 1280 x
    720 60p. So I tried going direct to Encore out of the project and letting it
    transcode on auto, and the result was a disc that just went nuts. It
    flickered, blanked out to green, strobed some more, and just threw a
    tantrum.

    I finally went out of my project as MPEG-2 Blu-ray at the normal 1920 x 1080
    69i setting and it worked fine.

    Is this experience peculiar or par for the course? I believe 1920 x 1080 60p
    is part of the Blu-ray standard - right?

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, May 22, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gary Eickmeier

    mkujbida Guest

    mkujbida, May 22, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gary Eickmeier

    Frank Guest

    This has been discussed here numerous times in the past.

    If you want to put square-pixel 1920 by 1080 video on a BD (Blu-ray
    Disc), it will need to conform to one of the following four choices -

    * interlaced at 59.94 fields per second

    * interlaced at 50 fields per second

    * progressive at 24 frames per second

    * progressive at 23.976 frames per second

    Given that neither 1920 by 1080 progressive at 59.94 frames per second
    nor 1920 by 1080 progressive at 60 frames per second are part of the
    ATSC standard, the folks who devised BD certainly weren't going to
    include either in the BD specification.

    This is one of the reasons why Sony was somewhat slow to include
    1080p59.94 capability in any of its consumer camcorders. Even today, I
    don't believe that any Sony consumer camcorder records 1080p60, just
    1080p59.94, and even that reluctantly.

    Reference:

    The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ - by Hugh Bennett
    http://www.hughsnews.ca/faqs/authoritative-blu-ray-disc-bd-faq

    Specific to your question:
    http://www.hughsnews.ca/faqs/author...al-logical-and-application-specifications#4.6

    Regards,
     
    Frank, May 22, 2013
    #3
  4.  
    David Ruether, May 22, 2013
    #4
  5. Gary Eickmeier

    Frank Guest

    Old _and_ lazy. :)
    There's probably lots of available software that will let you do this,
    but do note that the disc that you're creating via this method is not
    a normal BD movie disc and therefore will not be treated a normal BD
    movie disc by any BD player.
    There may well be some players on the market which will play such a
    file. I really don't know. If anyone makes them, I would think that
    Panasonic would, since they were among the first to introduce
    consumer-grade AVCHD camcorders that recorded 1080p59.94 footage.
    Again, David, I'm sorry but I just don't keep up with the specs on BD
    players these days. Besides, aside from size and weight, most don't
    say much more than -

    Color: Black or Silver
    Supports NetFlix: Yes
    Worth a try, especially if both the BD player and the telly are of
    recent vintage, and especially if they're both from Panasonic, and do
    please report back to us (when you finally get around to conducting
    the test), but keep in mind that even if your BD player doesn't choke
    on the file/disc, and I'm assuming that you'll be using an HDMI
    connection from the BD player to your telly, your telly must also be
    happy with such a signal - and this actually further assumes that the
    BD player will put out a true 1920 by 1080 59.94 progressive frame per
    second signal - and that your telly will accept such a signal and
    display it as such.

    As a corollary to that last point, I mentioned in a post the other day
    that I had a DVD-Video disc player that could play back PAL discs.
    Well, guess what? There are lots of makes and models of DVD-Video disc
    players available to "Americans" that can play PAL discs, but here's
    the important part, almost all of them *output* an NTSC signal!

    Why, you ask? Because this way it's possible to connect the output of
    such a player to an ordinary NTSC-only television, which just happens
    to be what Americans normally own.

    The player that I have not only plays PAL discs, but it outputs a
    genuine PAL signal, which in turn is connected to a pro monitor that
    accepts PAL input signals and displays them as PAL video so that what
    I'm seeing is a true PAL video image.

    In other words, in your case, you would somehow want to confirm that
    the integrity of your 1080p59.94 signal is being maintained throughout
    your playback chain.

    For example, if your BD player plays your 1080p59.94 file (and you can
    confirm the file with MediaInfo) but happens to output the usual
    1080i59.94 signal to your telly, then all bets are off in that you can
    *play* the file but you can't *see* the file.

    So if your telly has a menu selection for displaying technical
    information about the signal that it's currently displaying, and you
    see something like "1920 x 1080 59.94 frames progressive", then you'll
    know that your experiment worked.

    Good luck! I must run; I've got someone screaming at me for a
    time-critical Web site update.
     
    Frank, May 22, 2013
    #5
  6.  
    David Ruether, May 22, 2013
    #6
  7. I see the source of my confusion now. ALL of my Hollywood Blu-ray discs say
    "Video full 1080p" But what it must mean is 1920 x 1080 24p. But it has to
    be shown on a 60 Hz system, right? So it ends up being some kind of 60i
    upconvert after all is said and done anyway.

    So if you shoot at 60p and show at 60i, what's the difference? Half the
    number of frames, right? It would be 30p vs 60p.Or perhaps all this
    confusion depends on the projector's conversion engine, how it treats the
    various frame rates and fields. A still image would look identical to a 60p
    image. But pan across a scene and the res is cut in half. Or something like
    that.

    I first noticed this problem in the 3D Cyberlink program, when I tried to
    output my test 3D video. There just was no 1920 x 1080 60p or 60i. When I
    output to 1920 x 1080 24p, the video picket fenced to distraction. When I
    went out at 1280 x 720 at 60i, it was good again.

    I just ran up against this problem again in a Videomaker blog. This guy
    wanted to know what camcorder to buy that had full resolution at 60p. I told
    him not to worry too much about the 60p spec because he can't use it. So why
    do they include it?

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, May 23, 2013
    #7
  8. Frank (or a Google search...;-) would likely reveal more,
    but I suspect that "inbetweener" frames are synthesized by
    the Blu-ray player to supply 60P from 24P. 24P/30P looks
    terrible to me, with its "fluttery" look with motion, and
    I've never understood its appeal (I prefer smooth "video
    look" to the leftover-from-film-limitations "film-look"!).
    Not only the resolution with motion, but also aliasing
    on contrasty edges gets worse. When I connect my "60"P
    Panasonic TM700 camcorder directly to my HDTV to view
    raw 60P footage, the image is free of aliasing and its
    images in motion look sharp and good (if the motion
    is slow enough for the frame rate). The same footage
    written to Blu-ray at 1080-60I still shows good motion
    quality, although the picture is somewhat less sharp in
    motion, but contrasty edges show noticeable aliasing.
    Dropping to 720-60P on the Blu-ray disk results in a
    noticeably less detailed picture, hence my interest
    in the possibility of having 1080-60P on Blu-ray,
    especially if 50Mbps is also possible (the spec limit
    is 40Mbps...), since I may be buying a camera that can
    shoot 1080-60P at 50Mbps. But, I have not yet tried it
    (I be too a-skeerd t' find it doesn't work, mebbe...;-).
    Ta-DAH! BUT..........;-)
    So we can watch footage directly from the camera as
    it *should* be seen...?;-) But, it is useful to shoot,
    edit, and archive the higher-quality 1080-60P material
    both for getting as much image-quality as possible onto
    the current disks, and for possible use in the future
    if 1080-60P becomes part of the standard, or we want
    to up-scale our "old" videos to 4K... BTW, at least
    with the Panasonic TM700, comparing 28Mbps 1080-60P
    footage with 17Mbps 1080-60P footage is quite
    interesting: even with stationary material, the fine
    detail difference between them is quite noticeable
    (and 720-60P is worse yet). Also, if the camera is
    used to convert 60P footage to 60I, the detail-level
    of the 60I footage is very close to that of the 60P
    footage, indicating that the longer-than-real-time
    conversion to 60I from the native 60P sensor rate
    is better than the faster "on-the-fly" real-time
    conversion that the camera must do to shoot 60I,
    even though the final 60I file is at the same 17Mbps
    data rate. I always shoot at 1080-60P to get the
    best possible results with that camera (if the 60P-
    converted 60I footage is changed much while editing,
    it doesn't appear to hold up as well as working with
    the original 60P material).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 23, 2013
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.