[ckhouston]

There are three I know of. The first two are discussed only briefly for completeness because the third one normally occurs before them.

The first is a 120 min limit on any single title. Builder gives a message and won't let you proceed when this is exceeded. The second is a limit on the size of an image file (ISO) that Builder will write. It stops when the file reaches 7.95 GB (size reported by Windows Explorer) and all video content above that is cut off. Sometimes an error message about the menu is given but not always. Approximate cut off times for different video qualities are

Best - 9mbps: 120 min
Good - 8mbps: 135 min
Med - 7mbps: 154 min
Low - 4mbps: 270 min

The third problem is more serious since it happens with shorter projects. It starts when the ISO file size goes slightly above 4.35 GB and Disc Copier is used to compress it to fit a standard single layer DVD disc. The result is a portion of the middle of the video will be repeated when the disc is played back on a set top at normal speed. Approximate times for this are

Best - 9mbps: 65 min
Good - 8mbps: 74 min
Med - 7mbps: 84 min
Low - 4mbps: 148 min

The amount repeated increases from zero at these times to an hour or more for longer projects.

There is no warning that a problem happened during the burn, and it is easily missed because usual quick checks on a computer or with a set top player won't show it. It will show up when you sit down to watch all of it in real time on a set top player though. (Special techniques for quicker checks are given later.)

Typically, somewhere well into the video, the time displayed by the player will start cycling. After a couple of transitory cycles, it will settle into a regular 30 sec cycle. This isn’t objectionable, but, sometime later, playback will suddenly return to the point where cycling first started, repeat play between the two points, and then proceed to the end as if nothing were wrong. Time will continue to cycle until the return point is reached on the second pass. It will then recover and again synchronize with displayed video.

This is the behavior expected for most projects. But it can be different in a few rare cases, like when cycling starts near the beginning or end of a title and is hardly noticeable. Some video will always be repeated though, even if you see minimal or no time cycling.

This is bizzare behavior and probably hard to believe. The problem does exist though with any project longer than the above times. I have confirmed it on a clean system with minimal software installed. So the problem is in Builder's code, not one induced on my end.

Both the time where cycling starts and that where the playback suddenly returns to it are predicatble. I won't clutter this post with the equations but I can present them later if needed.

A fairly simple test project is given below that can be used to easily confirm the problem. It will vividly illustrate what happens and give guidelines for checking normal projects. I urge everyone to try it and check for themselves. Relying on impressions from any negative responses to this post may cause much disappointment later. It won't take longer to try than your usual projects.

In the VideoWave Storyline view, insert the following color panels (adjust duration to times shown):

3480 sec red in 1st panel
120 sec yellow in 2nd panel
510 sec green in 3rd panel
120 sec yellow in 4th panel
360 sec blue in 5th panel

Click "Burn production to disc" and save the project so it will open in Builder (project size will be 5529.0 MB there). Click Burn in Builder and choose to save it as an image file at Best quality and AC-3 audio. The size of the created image file reported by Win Explorer will be 5.00 GB. Use Disc Copier to burn the image to a single layer DVD, RW if you have one.

Now play the disc in your set top. Fast forward through the red part and start normal speed playback when the screen changes to yellow. If there were no problem, playback would progress smoothly through the green, 2nd yellow, and blue panels and then return to the menu. Watch closely for the next 15 min or so.

Time displayed by the player will start cycling about 1/2 min into the green part. You can probably set an onscreen time display if your player doesn't show it on the faceplate. Otherwise, make a note of your watch time when the green part starts, the return and repeat of the video will start about 11 min after that. Play will continue through the green and the second yellow part. About 1/2 min after the blue part starts, playback will return to the cycle point and the screen will suddenly turn green again. It will then repeat the approximate 10 1/2 min between the two points. (Again, the amount repeated increases in longer videos.) Displayed time will continue to cycle until the return point is again reached in the blue part on the second pass. It will then suddenly change to reflect values it would have shown if no problem had happened. You can fast forward again now if you want or continue at normal speed. Playback will continue to the end of the blue and return to the menu.

Win Media Player 9 and 10 or Cineplayer can also be used to check this test disc, or any suspect one, for the problem using techniques given below. (Note: Check compressed discs only, the problem won't show up in the image file. The presence of a ROXIOPLASMA folder on an existing disc means Disc Copier didn't compress it, so it won't have the problem.)

Start play and drag the time slider to some point after 58 min and then release it. The screen action will pick up and continue normally if you released anywhere before the cycle point or after the return point. The action will freeze however when you release between those two points. In other words, the screen scene will remain the same as it was when you first grabbed the slider. Time and audio wil progress normally though. This freeze is all that is needed to show a problem on the disc. Note that finding a point between cycle and return is hard, and may be impossible, for shorter videos only slightly above problem onset.

You can use this behavior to bracket the cycle and return points when they aren't known for projects on existing discs - info that will help when checking on a set top. Just be sure to stop and restart play before proceeding after screen action freezes, to prevent program hang.

Time cycling will show with these software players if you release before the cycle point and then let play continue. But, even though they can be used to estimate where the return point is, they won't show the actual return and repeat of video.

This post has been edited by ckhouston: 17 January 2006 - 06:16 AM

[ml]

HUH?

I'm assuming that someone with your technical expertise realizes that this is not Roxio Tech Support or Roxio Customer service.

If you push any software past it's limits, you're going to have problems.

One hour of 'best' quality video is recommended for a 4.7 GB DVD. Period. End of discussion.

You do a disservice to other posters on this board by encouraging them to put less than top quality video onto their DVDs.

This post has been edited by mlpasley: 17 January 2006 - 07:05 AM

[ckhouston]

That's a lot of vitriol. Why? And why did it take you so long - I noticed you read the topic yesterday?

Quotes from your reply are in italic.

"HUH?

I'm assuming that someone with your technical expertise realizes that this is not Roxio Tech Support or Roxio Customer service."

I know that, and I didn't ask for support or service did I?

"If you push any software past it's limits, you're going to have problems."

Granted, an obvious statement. I'm trying to make those limits clear to the average user. I don't think they have been.

"One hour of 'best' quality video is recommended for a 4.7 GB DVD. Period. End of discussion."

Yes, one hour of 'best' quality video is often recommended for a 4.7 GB DVD here and on the old boards. But "Period."? Give me a break! There are even more suggestions that Disc Copier can be used to fit more onto a disc.

"You do a disservice to other posters on this board by encouraging them to put less than top quality video onto their DVDs."

Maybe you need to re-read the post. Show me where I encouraged anyone to do that! I tried to do the opposite by showing the problem with going past the times I posted.

And, if that isn't enough to discourage users from following frequent suggestions on how to exceed them, try this.

Download Bitrate Viewer (free). Load some of the VOB files on the compressed disc from the test project I proposed. Drag the time slider and check the variation of the bitrate DC used to write files. Do you see the fairly constant bitrate you would expect for a video with no action? No, you see some pretty wierd stuff.

If you want a benchmark of smarter compression, try another experiment. Add a single color panel with 25 min duration in Videowave. Click "Output your production in different formats", choose DVD Authoring at Best quality, then render to the HD.

Now add the MPG file rendered by Videowave three separate times to the Source line in DivX-to-DVD Creator and click Convert. That makes a production only slightly shorter than the proposed Builder test.

Compare the bitrate variation in the VOBs converted with DivX-to-DVD with those from the Builder test. Even though DivX-to-DVD uses variable bitrate conversion, it is smart enough to recognize that only a low constant bitrate is needed when there isn't any action. Why would anyone want to use Disc Copier to compress with such a comparison?

In closing, a quote from my original post, "Relying on impressions from any negative responses to this post may cause much disappointment later." I still encourage users, including you, to try the test project and check old discs using the given quidelines. Check for yourself.

It seems to me that your reply was an effort to discourage other users from taking my post seriously. If that is true, you are the one doing a disservice to readers of these boards, and I have to wonder why.

This post has been edited by ckhouston: 17 January 2006 - 10:01 AM

[lynn98109]

I can't believe anyone would take your posts seriously anyway - too long, rambling, impossible to follow.

You need to find a better audience to appreciate your undoubteldy outstanding (if overdeveloped) intellect.

Lynn

[ml]

Quotes in italics by ckhouston
That's a lot of vitriol.

I'm sorry you thought that my post implied negativity on my part. I was simply trying to inject in the same logical manner of your post, a note of caution for those who are not familiar with the problems that you perceive as you push the limits of the software package.

I know that, and I didn't ask for support or service did I?

No. However, your observations seemed to imply that these 'limits' should be corrected and as users we have no way to do that. (At least, that's my interpretation of your post.)

I'm trying to make those limits clear to the average user. I don't think they have been.

Do you want to show me where in the Roxio Help Files, they advise pushing the limits? If you really want to make the limits clear to the average user, you'll have to be a little less obtuse. I have no objection to your telling people what the limits are, but you should also caution them about the decrease in video quality as you push the limits.

There are even more suggestions that Disc Copier can be used to fit more onto a disc.

Those are workarounds and end users have found those workarounds. Can you show me where someone advised that more than 2 hours can be put onto a 4.7 GB DVD with Disk Copier in EMC 7.5? If someone has that impression, then someone needs to send them a private email and ask them to correct their post. (It can be done in 7.1, but it's still not recommended.)

I tried to do the opposite by showing the problem with going past the times I posted.

Yes. However, the limits you suggested are not putting one hour of 'best' quality on a DVD.

Why would anyone want to use Disc Copier to compress with such a comparison?

I think you've made my point.

It seems to me that your reply was an effort to discourage other users from taking my post seriously. If that is true, you are the one doing a disservice to readers of these boards, and I have to wonder why.

Nope. That's your interpretation of my post.

I'm simply trying to emphasize to the average user of this program that one hour of 'best' quality video will give them the highest quality DVD.

I use the program to make DVDs of family and friend's events which is probably how most people use the program. I want the best quality of those events on a DVD.

It may be a failure in my logic, but I believe that most people who take their time to videotape, capture, edit and burn their memories to DVDs want the best quality on a DVD.

Again. I'm sorry that you misunderstood the tone of my post. And I'd encourage you to send your observations to Customer Service who can address your concersn.

This post has been edited by mlpasley: 17 January 2006 - 11:28 AM

[ckhouston]

lynn98109, on Jan 17 2006, 01:45 PM, said:

I can't believe anyone would take your posts seriously anyway - too long, rambling, impossible to follow.

You need to find a better audience to appreciate your undoubteldy outstanding (if overdeveloped) intellect.

Lynn

That's pretty harsh. I'm not trying to show off. I'm only trying to show, as simply as I can, a complicated problem that happens when a user follows a suggestion to use DC to get more on a disc. I certainly believe they need to know.

If you gurus were more receptive to reports like this, I wouldn't have to include as much detail to convince users that it is a real problem in spite of negative comments. But I have to deal with a barrage of replies that average users will take as an indication that there is no real problem here.

I know that the average user can certainly do the test proposed in the post or they won't be able to use EMC much. Why not let them do that without trying to influence them? Let them make their own mind up.

[Beerman]

ckhouston, on Jan 17 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

That's pretty harsh. I'm not trying to show off. I'm only trying to show, as simply as I can, a complicated problem that happens when a user follows a suggestion to use DC to get more on a disc. I certainly believe they need to know.

If you gurus were more receptive to reports like this, I wouldn't have to include as much detail to convince users that it is a real problem in spite of negative comments. But I have to deal with a barrage of replies that average users will take as an indication that there is no real problem here.

I know that the average user can certainly do the test proposed in the post or they won't be able to use EMC much. Why not let them do that without trying to influence them? Let them make their own mind up.

It is obvious that you are not happy with this product and I would not be surprised if you've looked elsewhere to fill your needs. If this truly is the case, and, if you are so unhappy, why do you spend so much time discussing the same 'problem'?

[sknis]

As so I penned It down, until at last it came to be, For length and breadth, the bigness which you see.

Author: John Bunyan
Source: Pilgrim's Progress--Apology for his Book

[ckhouston]

I thoroughly agree it is best to use Best quality and keep time below 60 min so it fits on a disc without compression. But we all know that sometimes users want to, and do, put longer videos on a single disc and that they are instructed how to do so in these forums. So I want them to be aware of the problem they will have in doing that.

I did try to keep the post as short as I could. So maybe I need to say clearly now that, if you absolutely need more time on a disc, use a lower quality instead of compressing best quality output. But keep times below those posted for a given quality. Avoid having to compress with DC if you don't want to be disappointed later when you sit down to actually watch.

BTW, I don't expect these limits to be corrected but I do want them to be known. I went to Tech Support with this problem over a year ago and got nowhere. Surprise! Surprise!

You know how it goes. A problem not admitted is one that doesn't have to be fixed. The only problem I really have with this is that the same attitude seems to be prevalent in these forums.

pcostanza, on Jan 17 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

It is obvious that you are not happy with this product and I would not be surprised if you've looked elsewhere to fill your needs. If this truly is the case, and, if you are so unhappy, why do you spend so much time discussing the same 'problem'?

You're right, I do use another product now. I spend time here because I think the many users of this product deserve to know the pitfalls I described.

Now I have a couple of questions. Why do you gurus respond to reports like this as you do, and why does it take so many negative responses to get your point across?

sknis, on Jan 17 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

As so I penned It down, until at last it came to be, For length and breadth, the bigness which you see.

Author: John Bunyan
Source: Pilgrim's Progress--Apology for his Book

Maybe you guys should form an editorial review board I could submit posts to. You certainly are Jhonny-on-the-spot critcs.

I have a feeling though that they would all come back saying "I was going to say something but I can't remember what it was. Must not have been important. Never mind."

[ckhouston]

Well it looks like I've been censored. My replies to pcostanza and sknis were evidently deleted without notice. Neither one contained profanity or violated any board rule I know of, nor were they anymore inflammatory than the posts I replied to.

So looks like a waste of time.

I want to again appeal to the average user to make up their own mind about this.

This post has been edited by ckhouston: 17 January 2006 - 12:55 PM

[ml]

Italics are comments by ckhouston:

BTW, I don't expect these limits to be corrected but I do want them to be known. I went to Tech Support with this problem over a year ago and got nowhere. Surprise! Surprise!

Since they don't advise people to use Disk Copier to shrink two hours onto a DVD, they'd be fixing something that the program wasn't designed to do. If you drive a car at 150 mph, the car company might not be sympathetic when you report that the engine blew up.

I'd suggest that you contact Customer Service in addition to Roxio Technical Support. If you have a complaint about the product, they'd be more likely to report about the features that customers want in the program.

I spend time here because I think the many users of this product deserve to know the pitfalls I described.

You may not have noticed, but we do try to help people avoid pitfalls in the program. People helped me when I was having a problem and I'm 'paying it forward.' We'd welcome your help in telling people how best to use the program to get the best results.

If someone else advises a user to put more than one hour on a DVD, perhaps our simple advisory that the video will decrease in quality might not be enough and they would be more likely to understand your explanation. (And no, I don't mean that to be a sarcastic comment.)

Why do you gurus respond to reports like this as you do, and why does it take so many negative responses to get your point across?

I responded because I wanted to make the point that users should only be putting one hour of 'best' quality onto a 4.7 GB DVD and the negativity is your perception of my response. One could interpret your original post as very negative, but I chose not to attach that emotion to your informational post.

I'm glad you found a program that you like to do your video editing. We'd welcome your help on the boards any time you care to drop in.

This post has been edited by mlpasley: 17 January 2006 - 01:10 PM

[ckhouston]

ckhouston, on Jan 17 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Well it looks like I've been censored. My replies to pcostanza and sknis were evidently deleted without notice. Neither one contained profanity or violated any board rule I know of, nor were they anymore inflammatory than the posts I replied to.

So looks like a waste of time.

I want to again appeal to the average user to make up their own mind about this.

My apologies! My replies were not deleted. They were somehow added to my reply to mlpasley here.

Sorry about that! Must have done something wrong.

My reply was added somehow to another one here.

Sorry, I must have done something wrong.

[james_hardin]

ckhouston, on Jan 17 2006, 03:51 PM, said:

Well it looks like I've been censored. My replies to pcostanza and sknis were evidently deleted without notice. Neither one contained profanity or violated any board rule I know of, nor were they anymore inflammatory than the posts I replied to.

So looks like a waste of time.

I want to again appeal to the average user to make up their own mind about this.

Actually, if you stick with using the Roxio product, you can't have any of the problems that worry you so…

You go out of your way to create a too large file with a 3rd party software (if memory serves me correctly) and then complain when you try to make it work with Roxio. If that software is so good, why not use it to burn your discs with?

I don't know what makes you think your post was deleted. You are listed with 8 posts and 8 posts are on the board???

I do agree that it would be nice if you could create a longer file and burn it. There are some situations where video quality may not be an issue to the end user.

[lynn98109]

ckhouston, on Jan 17 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

My apologies! My replies were not deleted. They were somehow added to my reply to mlpasley here.

Sorry about that! Must have done something wrong.

My reply was added somehow to another one here.

Sorry, I must have done something wrong.

That's the way the software here works, annoying tho it can be.

Perhaps you would care to describe the feature at greater length?

Lynn

[ckhouston]

james_hardin, on Jan 17 2006, 04:26 PM, said:

Actually, if you stick with using the Roxio product, you can't have any of the problems that worry you so…

You go out of your way to create a too large file with a 3rd party software (if memory serves me correctly) and then complain when you try to make it work with Roxio. If that software is so good, why not use it to burn your discs with?

I don't know what makes you think your post was deleted. You are listed with 8 posts and 8 posts are on the board???

I do agree that it would be nice if you could create a longer file and burn it. There are some situations where video quality may not be an issue to the end user.

Same ole, same ole. I've answered your concern about 3rd party input several times.

Besides, if you read the post, you'll find that input for the test project was generated using only color panels in Videowave. Nothing 3rd party was mentioned anywhere so why mention it here?

lynn98109, on Jan 17 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

That's the way the software here works, annoying tho it can be.

Perhaps you would care to describe the feature at greater length?

Lynn

Here's a good example. The last two lines of my post you replied to were meant as a reply to pcostanza, but they somehow got misplaced again. I logged off and closed Explorer and now things seem to be working OK. Hope this one winds up as a reply to you.

Do you want more detail?

[ckhouston]

My replies are still getting mixed up and added to the bottom of previous posts. Don't know what's wrong. I'm clicking on the Reply button under the post I intend to reply to. Have tried logging off and restarting without joy.

If anyone cares, responses to pcostanza and sknis are here and one for lynn98109 is here.

[ml]

ckhouston, on Jan 17 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

My replies are still getting mixed up and added to the bottom of previous posts. Don't know what's wrong. I'm clicking on the Reply button under the post I intend to reply to. Have tried logging off and restarting without joy.

If anyone cares, responses to pcostanza and sknis are here and one for lynn98109 is here.

You're not doing anything wrong. That's how this board works. All posts are added to the bottom of the list no matter who you are replying to. I think that's why they include quotes as a default.

[Beerman]

ckhouston, on Jan 17 2006, 02:39 PM, said:

I thoroughly agree it is best to use Best quality and keep time below 60 min so it fits on a disc without compression. But we all know that sometimes users want to, and do, put longer videos on a single disc and that they are instructed how to do so in these forums. So I want them to be aware of the problem they will have in doing that.

I did try to keep the post as short as I could. So maybe I need to say clearly now that, if you absolutely need more time on a disc, use a lower quality instead of compressing best quality output. But keep times below those posted for a given quality. Avoid having to compress with DC if you don't want to be disappointed later when you sit down to actually watch.

BTW, I don't expect these limits to be corrected but I do want them to be known. I went to Tech Support with this problem over a year ago and got nowhere. Surprise! Surprise!

You know how it goes. A problem not admitted is one that doesn't have to be fixed. The only problem I really have with this is that the same attitude seems to be prevalent in these forums.
You're right, I do use another product now. I spend time here because I think the many users of this product deserve to know the pitfalls I described.

Now I have a couple of questions. Why do you gurus respond to reports like this as you do, and why does it take so many negative responses to get your point across?
Maybe you guys should form an editorial review board I could submit posts to. You certainly are Jhonny-on-the-spot critcs.

I have a feeling though that they would all come back saying "I was going to say something but I can't remember what it was. Must not have been important. Never mind."

Speaking only for me, I can't respond to every post since I am not proficient in all aspects of the program and only post to those I am familiar with (there are exceptions of course). As far as the negative responses, and again, speaking only for myself, it's tiring to continually read the same lengthy posts that go nowhere to the average user. I can ask you why it takes so many of the same responses to get your point across. If you are using another product, help those who use that product and please stop be negative yourself about EMC. I have no problems with it----again, speaking for myself.

[patatrox]

>>The first is a 120 min limit on any single title.
>>Builder gives a message and won't let you proceed when this is exceeded.

Correct, that was a limitation of version 7 which originally didn't support dual layer discs. In releasing the updates it wasn't as simple as just choosing to disable the 120 minute limit or we would have done so. I'm not trying to justify the behaviour as it is a limiation, just to explain.

>>The second is a limit on the size of an image file (ISO) that Builder will write.
>>It stops when the file reaches 7.95 GB (size reported by Windows Explorer) and all
>>video content above that is cut off. Sometimes an error message about the menu is

Correct, this is a limitation of version 7. Based on feedback from this behaviour in 7 we have made changes and this limitation does not exist in version 8.

>>The third problem is more serious since it happens with shorter projects.
>>It starts when the ISO file size goes slightly above 4.35 GB and Disc Copier
>>is used to compress it to fit a standard single layer DVD disc.

While I haven't seen this behaviour myself I have no doubt everything you've typed above is corrected based on your research. As of right now I do not believe there will be any additional updates for v7.x. You may want to discuss it with technical support if you are not able to work around this.

[ckhouston]

mlpasley, on Jan 17 2006, 05:25 PM, said:

You're not doing anything wrong. That's how this board works. All posts are added to the bottom of the list no matter who you are replying to. I think that's why they include quotes as a default.

Maybe I should have been more clear. My new posts are being appended to the end of previous posts, just like they would be if I edited them and added new stuff (check the urls out). They aren't being added as new posts at the bottom of the list.

Hope that's not too much detail. LOL, of course I'm being sarcastic but not with you personally.