But, for highest quality, about one-hour is the limit anyway

for writable DVDs - and you can get a bit longer than an hour

with MyDVD. The other winner (Ulead's entries) handles

variable length requirements well, if needed - but I prefer the

menus and ease of use of MyDVD for most things (and its output

quality easily surpassed some surprising competitors also set

for 1-hour recordings). I gave several MPEG2 encoders a

tough-test 3-minute clip - and most failed the "hand-held

walk through a flower garden, with a turn as I passed through

the gate in the stone wall, shot with a VX2000" test - this is a

"toughy". One solved the problem of having a large amount of

fine detail in motionby reducing resolution(!) - NOT acceptable!

Others just went into jittering or blocking. We could not run

TMPGEnc successfully, so it may for others also be one of

the "good" ones (I suspect it is, from the many comments of

others...). Why fight a good, cheap, easy-to-use solution,

though...?;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:2pprvv4cumdrt2m2vkrn0cku24dlpo1a9b@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:47:31 GMT, "David Ruether"

> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> vaguely proposed a theory

> ......and in reply I say!:

> From what I can see (and nobody has argued with me yet) it is NOT easy

> to use, if you want to manipulate the bitrate and quality.

>

> The reason it gives "good enconding quality" as far as I can see, is

> that it forces the qulity to "DVD legal" (highest) settings and you

> can't get a 2-hour movie on a DVD. Also AFAICS, there is no choice in

> the matter.

>

> If other programmes give lesser results, then it is probably because

> they were misused, or were usxed correctly to fit two hours' film on

> one DVD.

>

> Even if you encode in another programme, then author with MyDVD, it

> will "convert" anything that it thinks does not fit.

>

> It is quite OK as a burner, though. IT's just the authoring part that

> is so bad.

> >We liked it - after comparing its encoding quality with several

> >other programs (including some "top-rated" ones), it came out

> >as one of the two preferred programs for best-looking video

> >(highest-quality setting - Ulead was the other). And, it is easy to

> >use, with good looking (if not very variable) menu options.

> > DR