Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions
Olam
Forum MemberPosts: 66
Like?
Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
Jan 23, 2013

Hello there,

I have been working on this project that is destined for regular dvd's and I have been shooting 60p trying to get the best quality upfront.

Now I use Clipwrap and just rewrap the clips so that I can use them in Imovie 08....

Yes I know, its just Imovie, but thats what I have to work with!

Now I struggled to find the best bitrate when I converted the final master to H.264. 30p.

After testing much, I realized that it was best to get the highest bitrate that could fit on a regular dvd.

Since the movie is 20 minutes, I was able to convert with a 30mbs bitrate and that seemed to give the best results and that gave me a 4.5 gig file which fits on the dvd.

The camera has a 28mbs bitrate and so it seemed right to go to 30mbs to keep the quality during the compression .

Now I was wondering if 30p would be just as good considering its converted and burned on a dvd(not blue-ray)?

I'm not shooting fast action and so the 60p was just me trying to get the best out of the camera...and its more a documentary than a "film" so 24fps was not needed.

Any tips on what would be the best compromise when doing projects destined for regular dvd's?

thanks

Sony Alpha NEX-6
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,527
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Olam, Jan 23, 2013

In very general terms, the faster the bitrate, the higher the quality.   But other factors are at play as well, such as whether or not you use a 1-pass or 2-pass encoding process.   And if your content doesn't have a lot of detail moving in various directions then you may not be able to notice the difference.

The thing to watch out for is whether or not you need the DVD to be playable on a standard DVD player connected to a television.   The DVD standard specifies a maximum bitrate for video of about 10Mbit/sec.  This was done so that all of the manufacturers knew what to expect so they could build the DVD player with a spindle speed and internal decoding circuitry that's able handle all discs.

A lot of DVD players are capable of playing back video of substantially higher data rates, but there's no guarantee that videos with higher bitrates will pay on every player.   I know for a fact that some BluRay players top out at about 16Mbit/sec because they don't spin the DVD fast enough to exceed that.  I'd guess the same applies to a lot of DVD players as well.

At DVD resolutions (720 x 480), 10Mbit/sec should be adequate if you're using a good encoder.  It's what the movie studios use for their DVDs so that they'll comply with the standard and be guaranteed to play on any player.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Olam
Forum MemberPosts: 66
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Sean Nelson, Jan 23, 2013

thanks for the reply,

yes I did use a 2 pass encoding and I am using Idvd to burn the disc.

yes it will be played on HD tv's since its a 1080p video.

I actually encoded a 10Mbit/sec version and burned the dvd with that and it was way lower in quality than the original.

Now if major studios use that rate, how do they get the content to look so good?

Am I wrong in thinking that a 4k camera shot will look better than my nex6 1080p

even if they are both finally encoded at 10Mbit/sec for a dvd?

I guess I just answered that.....

So how can I maintain maximum quality as close as possible to the original when burning a dvd?

Could it be that Idvd is not as good as another dvd burning software?

Just to be clear:

I use Nex6 at 1080p, 60p, rewrap with clipwrap,I movie 08 and Idvd.....

Anything I did not do that could give me better results?

Oh and I did not know a dvd resolution was  (720 x 480),

so would it make a better result if I encode at (720 x 480) ?

thanks a bunch

Sean Nelson wrote:

In very general terms, the faster the bitrate, the higher the quality. But other factors are at play as well, such as whether or not you use a 1-pass or 2-pass encoding process. And if your content doesn't have a lot of detail moving in various directions then you may not be able to notice the difference.

The thing to watch out for is whether or not you need the DVD to be playable on a standard DVD player connected to a television. The DVD standard specifies a maximum bitrate for video of about 10Mbit/sec. This was done so that all of the manufacturers knew what to expect so they could build the DVD player with a spindle speed and internal decoding circuitry that's able handle all discs.

A lot of DVD players are capable of playing back video of substantially higher data rates, but there's no guarantee that videos with higher bitrates will pay on every player. I know for a fact that some BluRay players top out at about 16Mbit/sec because they don't spin the DVD fast enough to exceed that. I'd guess the same applies to a lot of DVD players as well.

At DVD resolutions (720 x 480), 10Mbit/sec should be adequate if you're using a good encoder. It's what the movie studios use for their DVDs so that they'll comply with the standard and be guaranteed to play on any player.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jezebel Masterson
Forum MemberPosts: 71
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Sean Nelson, Jan 23, 2013

Sean Nelson wrote:

In very general terms, the faster the bitrate, the higher the quality. But other factors are at play as well, such as whether or not you use a 1-pass or 2-pass encoding process. And if your content doesn't have a lot of detail moving in various directions then you may not be able to notice the difference.

This is interesting because I have spent a lot of time reading about and watching GH2 clips, hacked versions. The general consensus is that the top end camcorders can still best the sharpness of a GH2, even though it's often a 28mb/s vs 176mb/s. I know there is more to the information channel than sharpness, but is this really the case or am I missing something? How can 28 look better than nearly 200mb/s?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,527
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Jezebel Masterson, Jan 23, 2013

Jezebel Masterson wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

In very general terms, the faster the bitrate, the higher the quality. But other factors are at play as well, such as whether or not you use a 1-pass or 2-pass encoding process. And if your content doesn't have a lot of detail moving in various directions then you may not be able to notice the difference.

This is interesting because I have spent a lot of time reading about and watching GH2 clips, hacked versions. The general consensus is that the top end camcorders can still best the sharpness of a GH2, even though it's often a 28mb/s vs 176mb/s. I know there is more to the information channel than sharpness, but is this really the case or am I missing something? How can 28 look better than nearly 200mb/s?

There's a big difference between sharpness and compression artifacts.   The point of higher bitrates is to reduce compression artifacts, but they won't improve an image that isn't sharp to begin with.   Similarly, the sharpest camcorder in the world won't look all that great if it records a screen full of randomly fluttering tree leaves at a low bitrate.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jezebel Masterson
Forum MemberPosts: 71
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Sean Nelson, Jan 25, 2013

Sean Nelson wrote:

Jezebel Masterson wrote:

I know there is more to the information channel than sharpness, but is this really the case or am I missing something? How can 28 look better than nearly 200mb/s?

There's a big difference between sharpness and compression artifacts. The point of higher bitrates is to reduce compression artifacts, but they won't improve an image that isn't sharp to begin with. Similarly, the sharpest camcorder in the world won't look all that great if it records a screen full of randomly fluttering tree leaves at a low bitrate.

Gotcha, thank you for that explanation. So would it be safe to say that higher bitrates are better for motion/action then? As well as saying, one could get away with lower bitrates for more stationary targets?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,527
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Jezebel Masterson, Jan 25, 2013

Jezebel Masterson wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

Jezebel Masterson wrote:

I know there is more to the information channel than sharpness, but is this really the case or am I missing something? How can 28 look better than nearly 200mb/s?

There's a big difference between sharpness and compression artifacts. The point of higher bitrates is to reduce compression artifacts, but they won't improve an image that isn't sharp to begin with. Similarly, the sharpest camcorder in the world won't look all that great if it records a screen full of randomly fluttering tree leaves at a low bitrate.

Gotcha, thank you for that explanation. So would it be safe to say that higher bitrates are better for motion/action then? As well as saying, one could get away with lower bitrates for more stationary targets?

Yes, in general that's true.   And the more complex the motion (lots of different things moving in lots of different directions) the more data is needed for a high quality representation.

Highly detailed scenes also require more bits to represent.  For example tree foliage, even stationary, will use more bits than something like a continuous blue sky above a blue sea.   That's generally less of an issue than motion, though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jezebel Masterson
Forum MemberPosts: 71
Like?
Re: Nex6: 1080p, 60fps on camera compressed for DVD, overkill?
In reply to Sean Nelson, Jan 25, 2013

Sean Nelson wrote:

Yes, in general that's true. And the more complex the motion (lots of different things moving in lots of different directions) the more data is needed for a high quality representation.

Highly detailed scenes also require more bits to represent. For example tree foliage, even stationary, will use more bits than something like a continuous blue sky above a blue sea. That's generally less of an issue than motion, though.

Ok, I appreciate the info. It's sometimes hard to get the specifics from anybody not wanting to get paid for it. Makes sense anyhow, the more pixel variation in a scene the more data it should take to represent that. This weekend I will try to get out of the neighborhood and test out my new toy. I would like to try some action, perhaps a trip to the nearest highway overpass lol. I admit, I am into the testing just as much as the artistic side.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads