1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 burning problem

Discussion in 'Multimedia' started by mike5426, Nov 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. mike5426

    mike5426 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    236
    HI, I burnt my first DVD yesterday on Premiere Pro 1.5 and it didn't come out very well. When I put it in the player, the quality was really really bad - like a 320x480 movie expanded on windows media player. The sound was decent.

    Furthermore, it took my brand-new 3.2ghz amd 1024ram computer that just zips across any other program 4hrs to render. It was only 34 minutes. That can't be right !? :confused:

    Mabye the problem is just that the export to DVD function on Premiere Pro sucks? Or could the problem be that I taped it in widescreen (720x480) and it is set to encode 4x3? On the widescreen options, they all read low quality. Maybe you could point out which settings are best or custom ones? Please give me some tips. Here are my settings:

    General:
    Disc Name: 20052311_110918
    Timeline Markers: No
    Loop Playback: No

    Preset:
    NTSC Progressive 4x3 High Quality 4Mb VBR 2 Pass
    Comment: High quality, VBR transcoding of Progressive-frame content (max bit rate = 7)

    Video Summary:
    Codec: MainConcept MPEG Video
    Quality: 5.0 (high quality)
    TV Standard: NTSC
    Frame Rate [fps]: 29.97 drop frame
    Field Order: None (Progressive)
    Aspect Ratio: 4:3
    Frame Width [pixels]: 720
    Frame Height [pixels]: 480
    Bitrate Encoding: VBR, 2 Pass
    Minimum Bitrate [Mbps]: 1.5000 (low quality)
    Target Bitrate [Mbps]: 4.0000 (low quality)
    Maximum Bitrate [Mbps]: 7.0000 (high quality)
    M Frames: 3
    N Frames: 15

    Audio Summary:
    Audio Format: PCM
    Codec: PCM Audio
    Sample Size: 16 bit
    Frequency: 48 kHz

    Encoding:
    Export Range: Entire Sequence
    Fields: None
    Maximize Bitrate: No
    Force Variable Bitrate: No

    DVD Burner:
    Burner: D:\_NEC DVD_RW ND-3540A
    Speed: Auto
    Burner Status: Media not present.
    Number of Copies: 1
    Record Options: Record
     
  2. Sponsor

  3. linskyjack

    linskyjack

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    22,812
    720X480 is not wide screen---Its the standard DV format. . Pick NTSC DV Highquality/Fields Lower--Chances are you shot it in fake widescreen---digitally enhanced wide screen and that could contribute to the crummy look. Unless you have a camera that shoots 16:9 natively, dont bother with it---just go with your standard NTSC

    Rendering takes a long time--you are compressing your avi files to mpeg and 4 hours for a thirty minute piece is not out of the norm.
     
  4. mike5426

    mike5426 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    236
    That is weird becuase on the camera, which is a sony dcr-hc40 I switched the mode to wide screen (16:9) and it appeared to capture that way since I have wide screen TV's. I see what is going on - premiere pro caputred it in "interlaced" wide screen mode which shows as 720x480 so I am guessing as it caputures, it builds in the bars to make it accomidate the camera but the computer thinks it is 4:3. I don't think you can change the resolution on premiere pro so I guess I will have to find another program.
     
  5. linskyjack

    linskyjack

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    22,812
    NO---you dont need different software---Preimere supports REAL WIDESCREEN--not the digitially enhanced widescreen that you have on your camcorder. It might look okay going directly into your TV, but as soon as you try to compress it (and thats what you are trying to do for DVD release) it gets real bad. Again, shoot all footage that is going on DVD in 4:3 mode--dont touch the widescreen mode unless its just for showing on your TV.
     
  6. mike5426

    mike5426 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    236
    So there is no way I can tape in widescreen for it to look decent on my tv? The only place where I'm ever going to play this file is on a widescreen tv. And if what you say is true, the damage has already been done since I recorded in widescreen. Can you tell me how burn to DVD on premiere pro so it actually looks good?
     
  7. linskyjack

    linskyjack

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    22,812
    Yes.

    1. Shoot in 4:3
    2. Use the presets you used above.

    Again, this is a hardware issue (your camera doesn't support real 16:9) and you should get excellent quality if you shoot in normal mode.
     
  8. RanmaChan

    RanmaChan

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    linskyjack maybe is confusing widescreen with high definition? If I shoot 4:3 video, it is only using 2/3rd of my TV. That is a waste of space. I shoot everything at 16:9... and have no trouble getting high quality DVDs. (I admit I have a HC90, but if your 16:9 videos look okay before encoding, they should look okay after encoding.)

    Anyway, the HC40 has 690K effective pixels. Even throwing out 1/3rd of those because the CCD is actually 4:3... 16:9 video will turn out significantly higher quality if you start with 16:9 video. The reason is because with 4:3 video you are shooting 480i video, and if you zoom into the video to make 16:9 video, you end up with 360i video (16:9 video letterboxes into 360 of the 480 vertical pixels on a "full screen" TV). If you start with 16:9 video, your camera should be storing 480i widescreen video. You only need 345600 pixels for 480i resolution, and your camera has some to spare. It will not be as high quality as a HC90 which has 3-4 times the resolution; however, your camera should be saving "true widescreen", not digital widescreen... If it looks good before you compress it, there is nothing magical about DVD encoding that suddenly should make your good looking 16:9 video into 320x240 crap... assuming your bitrate is high enough and you use a good encoder.

    Anyway, I suspect your problem is you used the default settings for Adobe Premiere 1.5... all of which suck for widescreen video. If you encode your 16x9 presentation as 4:3, it WILL NOT play back correctly on modern DVD players onto a widescreen TV. (At least that is the case on my Component output DVD player on my 50" DLP.) I turn DVD multiplexing on since I use Nero Vision Express to finalize my DVDs, otherwise I have had trouble getting sound.


    These are the settings I use, depending on the quality I want, but I'm sure they could be improved with more tweaking:


    "NTSC DV 16x9 High Quality 7MB VBR 2Pass", takes about 5 hours per hour of video:
    Video Summary:
    Codec: MainConcept MPEG Video
    Quality: 5.0 (high quality)
    TV Standard: NTSC
    Frame Rate [fps]: 29.97 drop frame
    Field Order: Lower
    Aspect Ratio: 16:9
    Frame Width [pixels]: 720
    Frame Height [pixels]: 480
    Bitrate Encoding: VBR, 2 Pass
    Minimum Bitrate [Mbps]: 3.5000 (low quality)
    Target Bitrate [Mbps]: 7.0000 (high quality)
    Maximum Bitrate [Mbps]: 8.0000 (high quality)
    M Frames: 3
    N Frames: 15

    Audio Summary:
    Audio Format: PCM
    Codec: PCM Audio
    Sample Size: 16 bit
    Frequency: 48 kHz

    Multiplexer Summary:
    Multiplexing: DVD


    NTSC DV 16x9 Medium Quality 6MB VBR 2 Pass (takes about 80 minutes per hour of video):

    Video Summary:
    Codec: MainConcept MPEG Video
    Quality: 3.3 (medium quality)
    TV Standard: NTSC
    Frame Rate [fps]: 29.97 drop frame
    Field Order: Lower
    Aspect Ratio: 16:9
    Frame Width [pixels]: 720
    Frame Height [pixels]: 480
    Bitrate Encoding: VBR, 2 Pass
    Minimum Bitrate [Mbps]: 3.8250 (low quality)
    Target Bitrate [Mbps]: 6.0000 (medium quality)
    Maximum Bitrate [Mbps]: 8.0000 (high quality)
    M Frames: 3
    N Frames: 15

    Audio Summary:
    Audio Format: PCM
    Codec: PCM Audio
    Sample Size: 16 bit
    Frequency: 48 kHz

    Multiplexer Summary:
    Multiplexing: DVD
     
  9. linskyjack

    linskyjack

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    22,812
    Hold on a second. Your camera and his camera dont have 16:9 chips and thus, the camera manipulates the video to make fake 16:9. Fake 16:9 looks horrible.
     
  10. RanmaChan

    RanmaChan

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    I forgot to point this out on my other post: Some DVD players have trouble with my "high quality" settings... they get all blocky and have jumpy video at chapter breaks. So you may want to turn down target bitrate to 5 or 6 and max bitrate to 6 or 7. But if you view your videos on a computer or high end DVD, 7 or 8 Mbps is usually not a problem.

    Perhaps your (Mike's) problem was your DVD player could not handle the high bitrate. If you try turning down the target and maximum Mbps, you might get better results.

    ---------
    Hold on a second: linskyjack doesn't know the answer to how to make high quality videos with a decent camera that shoots real 16:9 footage. Therefore linskyjack offers fake answers.

    Clearly that are wrong. You don't need a 16:9 CCD to generate real 16:9 video, you simply need high enough resolution on your 4:3 CCD so that thowing out the top and bottom 15% of the image leaves enough resolution to make a 16:9 video 480i.

    If mike shoots 4:3 video to show on his widescreen TV. That is the real fake 16:9. (Since it would be 360i).
     
  11. linskyjack

    linskyjack

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    22,812
    LOL----you obviously dont know anything about 16:9--I repeat, there are specialized chips that shoot 16:9---your little Sony does not and therefore it is enhanced 16:9. Chances are you one of the growing ranks of amateurs who bought an el-cheapo camcorder and is now fancies himself a DP. I have been doing this from before you were born and trust me, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about and should not post bad information.

    By the way genius, I checked the specs on your camcorder and it isn't even prosumer---It's an entry level family video camera that doesn't not shoot true 16:9. If you want to shoot true 16:9 save up your money and by the camera that I shoot with.


    Okay--just to shut you up once and for all, read this.

    All about the 16:9 Format

    by D Gary Grady
    Aug 4, 2002


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am fairly confused about the whole 16:9 aspect ratio. I am hoping that someone could explain to me the basic ins and outs.
    Let's see how much I can cram into as little space as possible while still making it coherent. I'm sure I'll belabor plenty of things you already know, but bear with me.
    The traditional proportions of a television screen match those of classic movies, with the height 3/4 of the width. We normally write that the other way around, 4:3. It's easier to compare to other screen shapes if we convert it to decimal form and make it 1.33:1. That is, the width is 1.33 times the height.

    Technically, this matches the shape of silent movies. Sound 35 mm films through the early 1950s were slightly wider at 1.37:1. In the 1950s theatrical features started to be made in even wider proportions, with the standard eventually settling down to two shapes: 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. The latter is often incorrectly written 2.35:1 because that was for years the Cinemascope standard; it became 2.39:1 about 1970. Which is of course picky irrelevant trivia if you're shooting DV, because it's very hard to get a good 2.39:1 image out of DV.

    Television production is currently moving in the direction of a wider screen shape as well. This was debated all over the place in the early 1980s (a lot of cinematographers wanted 2:1, for example), and eventually a standard of 16:9 (1.78:1) was adopted. This happens to be the geometric midpoint between silent movies and Cinemascope, so there's some logic to it. And it's also nearly identical to the theatrical standard 1.85:1 in which most feature films are shot.

    Now, there's nothing inherent in a television signal that gives it any particular proportions to the image.

    DV, for example, uses 720 pixels per row and either 480 rows (NTSC) or 576 (PAL). (A pixel is a picture element, the dots that make up a digital video picture.) If pixels were square, as on a computer screen, an NTSC image would be 1.5 times as wide as high (3:2 proportions, like a 35 mm slide). PAL TV would be only 1.25 times as wide as high (proportioned 5:4).

    But nothing says pixels have to be square, and both NTSC and PAL standard television screens have the same proportions, 4:3 (which we can also write, rounded off, as 1.33:1). As long as the camera's chips have the same shape as the television screen, the picture looks OK.

    (By the way, NTSC is the television system used in North America, Japan, and a few other places. PAL or its SECAM variant is used elsewhere. For several reasons, mainly the greater number of pixel rows, PAL is slightly better for productions intended for transfer to film. But NTSC looks nearly as good.)

    If you want to create an image to display on a 16:9 television screen (or to create a 1.85:1 film image), you ideally want to start with a camera that has 16:9 chips. Unfortunately, these are at present not cheap.

    An alternative is to use a standard 4:3 camera with an anamorphic adapter lens. This squeezes the image so that a 16:9 picture fits onto a 4:3 chip. (A very similar approach is used to create a 2.39:1 image on 35 mm film.) The result is virtually identical to what you'd get using a true 16:9 camera.

    Of course, there has to be a catch, and there are several. First, anamorphic adapter lenses cost about $700. Also, they may keep you from holding focus during a zoom (which you should usually avoid doing during a shot anyway, though), and they may make the picture soft at the telephoto end of the zoom range. Both Century and Optex make these adapters. I've heard slightly better things about the Optex but never used either personally. I've also heard that these adapter lenses are a bit clumsy to work with.

    Suppose you can't get a 16:9 camera or even an anamorphic adapter for a 4:3 camera. What then? Well, you can always extract a 16:9 rectangle (or any other shape, for that matter) from a 4:3 image.

    Contrary to some things you'll hear, the result will have the *exact same resolution* as an ordinary 4:3 image. (Lopping off part of an image doesn't change the resolution in the rest of it.) But it won't have as much vertical resolution as a native 16:9 image because a 16:9 image crams more pixel rows into the same shape, thus squeezing pixels closer together.

    The difference isn't drastic, though, only a factor of 3/4. A PAL 4:3 image "letterboxed" down to a 16:9 shape will have only 432 pixel rows, but that's almost as many as the 480 in a standard NTSC image.

    Your camera can actually do this for you. Its electronic 16:9 feature will convert the middle band of its 4:3 image to 16:9 on the fly and record that to tape.

    If you have a Canon camcorder, in fact, this is the way to go. Because the conversion takes place before compression, you wind up using more compression blocks on the active part of the image and getting slightly better resolution than in 4:3. But if you have a Sony camera, the conversion adds too much vertical edge enhancement and you end up worse off. (See adamwilt.com for more on this.) If you have a Sony, shoot 4:3 and convert to 16:9 in post-production.


    Basically I hope to shoot a low budget film and then blow it up for theater distribution.
    Join the club. Not only is everybody and his dog doing this, so now are gerbils and parakeets. And tropical fish -- you think all the messages on this list about underwater cases are an accident?

    I've been told that even if my camcorder is in 16:9 mode that I still need to block off a half an inch off the top and bottom of the screen with tape to ensure that the 16:9 is accurate. Is this correct?
    Not even remotely close. Conversion to 16:9 in a camera or NLE is 100% perfect in terms of proportions. Very few viewscreens are that precise (most cut off some of the image), and when it comes to humans and pieces of tape...
    Also, for the record, remember that theaters don't project 16:9. They're supposed to project 1.85:1 or 2.39:1, and in practice it's not unusual for them to be way, way off from these proportions. Often a 1.85:1 image is shown with some cut off at the top and bottom; something closer to 2:1 shape is actually quite common.


    D Gary Grady
    Durham NC USA
    dgary at mindspring com


    If that doesn't convince you, read this FAQ by Adam Wilt, a colleague of mine who is renowned as a technical guru in the video field.


    How do you get 16:9 pictures?
    You can use the 16:9 switch on your camera (if it has one). Or, you can shoot and protect a 16:9 picture on 4:3. Or, you can use an anamorphic lens.
    Many cameras have a 16:9 switch, which when activated results in either a "letterboxed" image and/or an anamorphically-stretched image. But be careful; there's a right way and a wrong way to do this.

    The "right way" is to use a 16:9 CCD. When in 4:3 mode, the camera ignores the "side panels" of the CCD, and reads a 4:3 image from the center portion of the chip. When in 16:9 mode, the entire chip is used. In either case, the same number of scanlines is used: 480 (525/59.94 DV) or 576 (625/50 DV). You can tell when a camera is capturing 16:9 the "right way" because when you throw the switch, whether the resultant image is letterboxed in the finder or squashed, a wider angle of view horizontally is shown, whereas the same vertical angle of view is present.

    The "wrong way" is for the camera to simply chop off the top and bottom scanlines of the image to get the widescreen picture. When you throw the switch on these cameras, the horizontal angle of view doesn't change, but the image is cropped at the top and bottom compared to the 4:3 image (it may then be digitally stretched to fill the screen, but only 75% of the actual original scanlines are being used).

    [There are some Philips switchable cameras that do clever tricks with subdivided pixels on the CCDs; when you flip into 16:9 mode, the image's angle of view will get wider horizontally and tighter vertically. So to really be sure, use the change -- or lack thereof -- in the horizontal angle of view to see if your camera is doing 16:9 "the right way".]

    [Some Digital8 and DV cameras, like the PDX10, seem to split the difference: when in 16:9, the picture gets slightly cropped on top and bottom, and it gets a little wider! They seem to be using some extra chip area normally used for digital image stabilization to go wider, yet they don't have a wide enough CCD for true 16:9.]

    The "wrong way" is wrong because the resultant image only uses 360 lines (525/59.94) or 432 lines (625/50) of the CCD instead of the entire 480 or 576. When this is displayed anamorphically on your monitor, the camera has digitally rescaled the lines to fit the entire raster, but 1/4 of the vertical resolution has been irretrievably lost, and the in-camera algorithms used to stretch the image often create ugly sampling artifacts. This is not too terrible for SDTV playback (still, it isn't great), but it's asking for disaster if the image is upconverted to HDTV or film (Soderburgh's "Full Frontal" is prime example of the perils of in-camera vertical stretch).

    The bad news is that most inexpensive DV cameras (including the VX2000 and XL-1s) do 16:9 the wrong way.

    [Note that there are two "wrong ways," the vertical-pixel-shift method used by Canon and Panasonic, which isn't quite as bad as I make it sound; and the field-doubled/interpolated method employed by Sony (I don't know what JVC does). The Canon/Panasonic method yields images softer than true 16:9, but cleaner and sharper than the Sony method. I discuss the differences in more detail a bit further on.]

    16:9 chips were very costly and the yields (and demand) were low at the turn of the century; in late '98 Sony's DXC-D30WS 16:9-capable DSP camera (which, docked with the DSR-1 DVCAM deck, became the DXC-D130WS camcorder) was only available in short supply, and the Sony sales force was encouraged to steer folks to the non-widescreen D30 model unless they really needed widescreen, because the supplies were so limited. Even then, the WS model commanded a US$3000 premium over its 4:3-only sibling.

    As of 2005, things are a lot better. Canon' XL2 is the current entry-level true 16:9 camera in any of the DV formats. Once you allow for HD camcorders, realize that low-cost HDV and DVCPROHD cameras with true 16:9 sensors also record DV (and DVCAM or DVCPRO50) in 16:9 mode. At the low end, the single-chip CMOS Sony HDR-HC1 shoots 16:9 for under $2000; at the high end, cameras like the Canon's XL H1 (DV and HDV) and Panasonic's AG-HVX200 (DV, DVCPRO50, and DVCPROHD) shoot 16:9 for under $10,000.

    An anamorphic lens is the way film folks have done widescreen for years. A cylindrical element squashes the image laterally, so that you get tall, skinny pictures like images in a fun-house mirror. This squashing allows the 16:9 image to fit in the 4:3 frame. Century Precision Optics has anamorphic adapters to fit the VX1000, DSR-200, VX2000, PD150, GL1, and similar camcorders, as does Optex (distributed in the USA by ZGC). Both allow you to use the wider half of the zoom range, and both run about US$800.

    In the film theatre, or in the film print lab, a similar anamorphic lens unsquashes the image to yield the original widescreen image. In video, you use a DVE or an NLE plug-in filter to unsquash the image for letterboxed output, or you embed the appropriate codes into the data stream or video image (the codes differ in specification between different broadcast standards) to tell the receiver that the image should be displayed as widescreen. Most DV NLEs that support widescreen production, including Premiere 6.0, Final Cut Pro 1.2.5 and later, EditDV 2.0, and CineStream, insert this code when you specify a 16:9 aspect ratio.

    Anamorphics come with their own problems; they tend to be on the soft side, and they're limited in the focal ranges and focal distances at which they give a satisfactory image. They effectively work as wide-angle lenses in the horizontal direction only; as a result, they tend to focus differently in the horizontal and vertical directions! Color fringing and general softening tend to be problems, too. Still, anamorphics can be worth the effort if you're willing to work within their limits, and their bokeh (the pattern of fuzziness of out-of-focus areas) and flare are very distinctive. Anamorphics have a different "look" than "flat" lenses, and sometimes that look is just what you want.

    And if you don't have a true 16:9 camera and can't find an anamorphic lens? First, try using a 4:3 Canon or Panasonic camera; as explained below, they do a better-than-expected job in 16:9.

    Otherwise, Shoot and protect 16:9 on 4:3. Use the entire, non-widescreen 4:3 image, but protect your future revenue streams by ensuring that all important visual information is contained vertically in the center or upper 3/4 of the screen. That way you have the full resolution 4:3 image for use today, and you can always upconvert to HDTV later in the 4:3 aspect ratio or the 16:9 aspect ratio if you can accept the reduced vertical resolution. Should you need to repurpose the material into a 16:9 SDTV format later, you can letterbox it in post by setting up a vertical shutter wipe, putting black bands at the top and bottom of the screen just like on MTV.

    You're no worse off than with 16:9 material shot "the wrong way", but you have the freedom and flexibility of a full-resolution 4:3 image that's compatible with today's broadcast and non-broadcast standards.

    Or are you? Since the "wrong way" digitally stretches the image prior to DV compression, the DV codec doesn't have to compress the "wasted" material at the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. As a result, those central 360 (or 432) lines are spread out over the entire height of the picture, and all the DCT blocks are employed in compressing useful bits of the image. As a result, slightly more vertical resolution is preserved through the compression process when shooting the "wrong way" vs. "shoot and protect". Ben Syverson has pix that show the difference.

    Unfortunately, only the Canons and Panasonics look as good as Ben's pictures show. These cameras employ "pseudo-frame" resampling courtesy of vertical pixel shift, in the same way they get decent frame mode images. As a result, the images have more vertical resolution than purely field-based resampling provides, even if they aren't as good as using an anamorphic or a true 16:9 CCD.

    Sonys do a much poorer job of fake 16:9; they look equivalent to performing the same resampling in a field-based NLE like Final Cut Pro, with an added and excessive vertical edge enhancement used in a losing battle to retain perceived sharpness.

    I'd rate the quality of 16:9 images as follows:

    True 16:9 cameras, like the Canon XL2, Sony DSR-500 series, HDV and DVCPROHD camcorders.
    4:3 cameras with an anamorphic lens attachment (within limits).
    Fake 16x9 from a Canon XL1 or GL1, or a Panasonic AJ-EZ1, AJ-D200 series, or the like.
    4:3 cropped and stretched in post using an NLE.
    Fake 16x9 shot on a 4x3 Sony.
    Mind you, this ranking does not take into account the fundamental quality differences in the different camera heads and lenses. I'm only discussing the relative qualities of the different means of generating a 16:9 image in what's still largely a 4:3 world.
    Ben Syverson's Shooting in Widescreen DV is worth a look for more info.


    Now go play with your Lego cam and stop misinforming people.
     
  12. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/419222