Why use Encore if Premier Pro will make a DVD?

[Ricky Breslin]

Originally Posted by Steve Mydelski

You got, it the Uncompressed AVI doesn't add another codec. Every time you add another file format using another codec you're letting that codec interpret where the 0 and 1s go. To draw an analogy it's like the telephone message game. Each time you add a codec it changes the message how ever slight it might be.

Plus, there's a big difference between scaling/frame rate, which happen during transcoding, and encoding. I'd rather let one program do the scaling and another do the encoding.

I'm waiting to hear more response on if CS3 does a better one pass job on creating DVDs from HDV.

Me and my film guy are a little confused when you say "I'd rather let one program do the scaling and another do the encoding."

What do you mean by that?

[Christopher Lefchik]

Originally Posted by Ricky Breslin

I'm a little confused, so in your opinion, what's the best "workflow" for my situation?

I'm doing everything in PP 2.0 now and making my master DVD in DVD Lab Pro. Your saying to use Encore to encode instead of PP 2.0?

So are you saying to just export to Microsoft DV AVI from PP 2.0 and do my Audio seperately using my SurCode plugin and bring both of those files into Adobe Encore and let encore encode my DVD?

Whether you encode the video portion of your project in Premiere Pro or Encore, you are using the same MainConcept MPEG-2 encoder. The only difference is that Encore can automatically adjust the encode settings to fit to disk (really only an issue if your project is over an hour for a DVD-5 or two hours for a DVD-9).

I wouldn't say one way is better than the other. It depends on your preferences. If you would rather let Encore automatically take care of the encoding then you can take the extra time to export an AVI from Premiere for Encore.

If you are shooting and editing in HDV, I would not export the project to a DV AVI. If, on the other hand, you are shooting and editing in DV, a DV AVI should be fine.

[Ricky Breslin]

Originally Posted by Steve Mydelski

I'm not gonna comment on the audio issue becuase that's a whole other ball game.

For the video side, yes, that's what I'd do. Export an uncompressed AVI with DVD scale and frame rate, then imort in to encore and let it encode to DVD.

Uncompressed AVIs do not add another codec. The only down side to the process is the time it takes to create the AVI and the time to encode and the huge AVI file. The other benefit is you'll have a AVI file that if some time in the future you want to get professionally encoded it will be available.

Real quick about this comment. If you have an Uncompressed AVI of say a 60 minute DVD on your desktop when you say "get professionally" encoded what do you mean?

It seems your saying that YES, Encore does their job with MainConcept MPEGII encoder, but I guess your also saying that using a higher quality MPEGII encoder would be better.

So I could take that UNCOMPRESSED AVI file to Cinema Craft instead.

[Steve Mydelski]

Originally Posted by Ricky Breslin

Me and my film guy are a little confused when you say "I'd rather let one program do the scaling and another do the encoding."

What do you mean by that?

It's two seperate elements. Encoding is when a codec is applied to to a file. The scaling is changing the file to another resoltion/size. For instance, when I export HDV content for DVD creation, I set the file setting to 720x480/29.97 as a uncompressed AVI. I have not done any encoding in that process I'm simply scaling down.

Now when I'm ready to create a DVD I import that file to Encore and then it encodes the file to MPEG2 for the DVD.

[Ricky Breslin]

Originally Posted by Steve Mydelski

It's two seperate elements. Encoding is when a codec is applied to to a file. The scaling is changing the file to another resoltion/size. For instance, when I export HDV content for DVD creation, I set the file setting to 720x480/29.97 as a uncompressed AVI. I have not done any encoding in that process I'm simply scaling down.

Now when I'm ready to create a DVD I import that file to Encore and then it encodes the file to MPEG2 for the DVD.

We don't understand why you wouldn't let PP 2.0 do the encoding to MPEGII using their internal MainConcept Program?

If we have this right, YOU like to take the HDV footage, and ONLY use PP 2.0 to export the 720x480/29.97 stuff. And this is because you don't want PP 2.0 to do 720x480/29.97 AND encode to MPEG II at the same time?

If that's the reason, why? Is it that you just feel you get a better look for your DVDs if you don't let PP 2.0 do all the work?

[Steve Mydelski]

Originally Posted by Ricky Breslin

We don't understand why you wouldn't let PP 2.0 do the encoding to MPEGII using their internal MainConcept Program?

If we have this right, YOU like to take the HDV footage, and ONLY use PP 2.0 to export the 720x480/29.97 stuff. And this is because you don't want PP 2.0 to do 720x480/29.97 AND encode to MPEG II at the same time?

It that's the reason, why?

PP 2.0 does a good job scaling but not encoding HDV content to MPEG2, in my experience.

The difference may be slight but it's there. It's the same reason why feature films are encoded to DVD by profesionals who use software to look at every frame of a film to decide how to best be encoded.

My point is, each software program looks at the file differenly when encoding for MPEG2. That's why there's freeware DVD tools and software that custom designed for studio use. The process of encoding is not as generic as people seem to think when coming down from an higher res format.

The best result for you will be to try it both ways and let your eyes be the judge.

[Ricky Breslin]

Originally Posted by Steve Mydelski

PP 2.0 does a good job scaling but not encoding HDV content to MPEG2, in my experience.

The difference may be slight but it's there. It's the same reason why feature films are encoded to DVD by profesionals who use software to look at every frame of a film to decide how to best be encoded.

My point is, each software program looks at the file differenly when encoding for MPEG2. That's why there's freeware DVD tools and software that custom designed for studio use. The process of encoding is not as generic as people seem to think when coming down from an higher res format.

The best result for you will be to try it both ways and let your eyes be the judge.

So lastly, let me just understand YOUR workflow.

1. YOU film in HDV
2. You bring HDV into PP
3. You export using 29.97/720X480 to uncompressed AVI
4. You let ENCORE encode your audio file and avi file to MPEGII

Seems simple... Guess the only difference between our way and your way is that you didn't let PP encode to MPEGII, you let Encore do that.

We're testing this right this minute, I'll post back what I think of the resolution differences.

[Steve Mydelski]

Originally Posted by Ricky Breslin

So lastly, let me just understand YOUR workflow.

1. YOU film in HDV
2. You bring HDV into PP
3. You export using 29.97/720X480 to uncompressed AVI
4. You let ENCORE encode your audio file and avi file to MPEGII

Seems simple... Guess the only difference between our way and your way is that you didn't let PP encode to MPEGII, you let Encore do that.

We're testing this right this minute, I'll post back what I think of the resolution differences.

Pretty much. The biggest issue to me in the HD world is still delivering in SD. Going from 1440x1080HD to 720x480SD is dropping a lot of picture info.

Not all programs are created equal when it comes to calculating what information is important to a particular scence.

I'd be curious to your results. keep us posted.

[Ricky Breslin]

Well the verdict is in. But just exporting the entire MPEG2 file via Premier Pro 2.0 looks the best. It even looks better than going thru Cinema Craft.

Now... This could be because it's not a "movie". We have a white background, a perfectly set up 4 point lighting system, and are shooting HDV. It's very simple.

But exporting our audio and video out of premier gave us the sharpest, best color, etc image.

[Graham Hickling]

Just to clarify one further point - if you plan to export to an intermediate avi file that you will then encode, then:
- an uncompressed avi will lose no quality but will be a very large file;
- export using a Cineform-codec avi will retain almost all the quality and will be roughly 1/3rd (?) the size of uncompressed;
- export using a DV-codec avi will lose noticeably more quality and will be about 1/5th the size of uncompressed.

Quite a few of us use Cineform, at least for HDV editing, because it provides a very nice quality/size tradeoff.

[Ricky Breslin]

Graham, what's the big deal about Cineform? Should I look into it?

[Eric Shepherd]

It's faster, and uses less space. :)

I replied to your email, I didn't hear back from you though. Let me know.

Thanks,
Eric

[Damon Gaskin]

One question since I actually use the Cinemacraft Basic, and this may be different from the SP version. There is actually an option for encoding within the basic directly to mpeg, where you don't even have to encode to an avi at all. Is this an option with the more expensive version(I cannot imagine that it is not, since the more expensive actually allows you to do multiple passes over two pass)?

If so, you would completely bypass the intermediate step altogether. Besides, from what I have observed, the results from Cinemacraft are not only much better(from my tests, tremendously!) but the Cinemacraft encoder is also much faster.

Just a thought and something else as far as options..