Generally speaking, which should look better on a LCD - a good quality h264 file or a autoplay DVD from encore. My DVD seems to have crushed blacks and saturated colours when I transcode through encore at the default setting. The h264 looks great.
Any suggestions ?

Generally speaking, which should look better on a LCD - a good quality h264 file or a autoplay DVD from encore. My DVD seems to have crushed blacks and saturated colours when I transcode through encore at the default setting. The h264 looks great.
Any suggestions ?

DVD, or mpeg-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), is a completely different CODEC than h.264, or mpeg-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264). Mpeg-2 is much older, uses lower bit-rates, etc. Many DVD players crush blacks and run up the saturation to increase contrast in the resulting playback to make the video look better (whatever that means). What worked on older analog CRTs doesn't necessarily work well on modern digital flat panels.

An H.264 file should look better in comparison. It has more resolution available (DVD is around 640 x 480 pixels while H.264 can be 1920 x 1080 pixels), it's got a wider gamut, it's got a higher bit-rate, and it's got better compression.

My suggestion is to use what works best for you.

If the playback has to be with DVD player, then you don't have much choice. It has to be DVD compliant MPEG-2 format. However, if it's for computer playback, H.264 gives better result.

Thanks Bruce and Taky,
I'll go with h264.
Cheers

It has more resolution available (DVD is around 640 x 480 pixels while H.264 can be 1920 x 1080 pixels), it's got a wider gamut, it's got a higher bit-rate, and it's got better compression.

This is not really correct in general terms. Both MPEG-2 and H.264 are resolution indepentent, you can encode even 4k image, if you so choose. For example XDCAM EX is an MPEG-2 codec. The gamut of MPEG-2 and H.264 is the same, and you can set almost any bitrate that you desire on both.

The resolution of a DVD is 720x576 in PAL land, and 720x480 in NTSC.

What is true that at the same bitrates H.264 has a better look due to its mostly superior compression algorithm, and will generally look better.

This is not really correct in general terms. Both MPEG-2 and H.264 are resolution indepentent, you can encode even 4k image, if you so choose.

We aren't talking about general terms. The OP was asking specifically about DVD. And DVD is very resolution constrained.

For example XDCAM EX is an MPEG-2 codec. The gamut of MPEG-2 and H.264 is the same, and you can set almost any bitrate that you desire on both.

Again, DVD is very constrained on bitrate. As to gamut, you may be right about the gamut coming out of the cameras, but IIRC DVD restricts gamut and levels below the levels most modern cameras can generate. As you would expect from 15 year old technology.

The resolution of a DVD is 720x576 in PAL land, and 720x480 in NTSC.

There are a number of DVD legal resolutions. Wikipedia has a summary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video) The 640 x 480 format gets used a fair amount for old movies recorded in 4:3 aspect ratio. This in turn gets padded out (pillar boxed) typically to 720x420. I should have done a better job with my previous explanation maybe.

Yes, it surprises me that so many clients still request DVD's when they are a pain to make, and package. Then you need a player, etc, etc. With a file they can be incorporated into presentations or played straight off a stick or external hard drive. I can see that a well encoded h264 or quicktime delivers much better results - I just didn't know why.