[pam_mortensen]

I know the files are of high quality because they are crystal clear when I play them on my computer. My problem is when I burn the DVD it is "fuzzy". I copy movies with the same DVD burner and everything is crystal clear so I figure it is in the rendering. My photo slide shows are great...it is my video that is fuzzy. I am rendering in MPeg-2, for DVD, Best Quality". This may be a stupid question for all you pros but I am pretty frustrated. Any ideas?

Can the DVD brand make a difference? burning 4x vs 8x ?

[ggrussell]

Brand of blanks will not make a difference. It's all in the bits. First, I'm not sure what you are comparing your output. Simply put, Home burned DVDs will NEVER be as clear as a commercial DVD. I read once that those animated features from Pixar that only ONE MINUTE of video takes WEEKS to render and that is using 1000s of computers hooked together. Most users complain that rendering one hour takes too long. As a consumer, we don't have access to the computing power or the type of rendering software that commercial systems use.

Second - Your final output may not look as crisp as your original simply because it MUST BE compressed. How much it is compressed depends on the length of the video and the available space (single layer or dual layer blank). To keep it simple, ONLY ONE HOUR of video at Best quality will fit on a single layer, 4.7gig blank DVD disc. Once you go over that, the video must be compressed MORE which will decrease the quality. Approx. 1hr and 58min for Dual layer.

This post has been edited by ggrussell: 11 February 2007 - 07:03 AM

[pam_mortensen]

ggrussell, on Feb 11 2007, 08:02 AM, said:

Brand of blanks will not make a difference. It's all in the bits. First, I'm not sure what you are comparing your output. Simply put, Home burned DVDs will NEVER be as clear as a commercial DVD. I read once that those animated features from Pixar that only ONE MINUTE of video takes WEEKS to render and that is using 1000s of computers hooked together. Most users complain that rendering one hour takes too long. As a consumer, we don't have access to the computing power or the type of rendering software that commercial systems use.

Second - Your final output may not look as crisp as your original simply because it MUST BE compressed. How much it is compressed depends on the length of the video and the available space (single layer or dual layer blank). To keep it simple, ONLY ONE HOUR of video at Best quality will fit on a single layer, 4.7gig blank DVD disc. Once you go over that, the video must be compressed MORE which will decrease the quality. Approx. 1hr and 58min for Dual layer.

Thanks! That makes me feel better, at least I am not doing anything wrong. Does it matter if I burn at 4x, 8x, or 16x?

[gi7omy]

pam_mortensen, on Feb 11 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

Thanks! That makes me feel better, at least I am not doing anything wrong. Does it matter if I burn at 4x, 8x, or 16x?

For preference, burn at 4x (the time difference is only in the matter of minutes) and in general 4x burns seem to suit the playback boxes better (they tend to hiccup badly on faster burns)

[pam_mortensen]

gi7omy, on Feb 11 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

For preference, burn at 4x (the time difference is only in the matter of minutes) and in general 4x burns seem to suit the playback boxes better (they tend to hiccup badly on faster burns)

Thanks...sorry for all the stupid questions.

I have another one, is the quality better if I burn from my video file in MyDVD rather than burn from an .iso file?

Thanks!

[myguggi]

pam_mortensen, on Feb 11 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

Thanks...sorry for all the stupid questions.

I have another one, is the quality better if I burn from my video file in MyDVD rather than burn from an .iso file?

Thanks!

Quality of the video makes no difference, the main advantage to burning from a iso file is that the rendering and burning have been separated into two separate process and the computer can "dedicate all its power" to the burning process which seems to result in more reliable burns. Also if you have created an iso file you could also quickly burn a copy DVD without having to go through the rendering process again.

This post has been edited by myguggi: 11 February 2007 - 09:48 AM

[pam_mortensen]

myguggi, on Feb 11 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

Quality of the video makes no difference, the main advantage to burning from a iso file is that the rendering and burning have been separated into two separate process and the computer can "dedicate all its power" to the burning process which seems to result in more reliable burns. Also if you have created an iso file you could also quickly burn a copy DVD without having to go through the rendering process again.

I sure am glad to hear that! I just recently discovered the .iso thing as a way to avoid the rendering each time.

[ggrussell]

The video folder is similar. Just that the files are not in one single file. Disc Copier can burn the video folder to disc and you can burn as many copies as you like. With video folders, you can also check the DVD menu playback with software like CinePlayer or PowerDVD.

[bds1958]

I load ISOs into the emulated drive and play on my media player.

Same result.....different route.