WMV 4.3 Profile

Jim5519

Newbie Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: Jun 24, 2012 18:54 Messages: 35 Offline

Solved by

Aug 02, 2012 17:13

Hi again, I don't want to beat a dead horse but I will leave with this one last question. I do know how to edit the WMV profiles now using my other Pc which has Windows Xp thanks to ynotfish. I want to make the perfect WMV Profile for uploading music videos to Youtube. I don't want the file start with the words Youtube because I will be uploading manually and not through PD 10. I just want to render into a windows format with a high quality audio format such as WMA stereo 44 khz. Before rendering I will be editing in 4:3 from a SD mini Dv camcorder (not HD) that shoots in mpeg-2 720 X 480, 29.97 interlaced but I will want the final render to be in Progessive instead of interleaved because that's what youtube recommend, and I will be staying in 4:3 SD but hopefully still a good quality. Any Profiles or profile settings to recommend in 4:3 ? Thanks
Jim Windows 7 64-bit, 32 GB Ram, Asus P9X79WS MB, Intel Core i7 3820 Quad core CPU, Asus ENGTX 570 Video Card, WD VelociRapter 600GB 10,000 rpm OS drive, WD Cavier Green 1TB Sata 6.0 storage drive. Panasonic PVGS400 mini DV camcorder, Power Director 10

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Aug 02, 2012 21:46

I am using Powerdirector 9 Ultra 64, but as far as I know Powerdirector 10 Ultra has the same built-in WMV profiles.

Attached is a Mediainfo of sample file render with the Windows Media Video 9 DVD Quality (3000Kps).

I set my aspect ratio to 4:3 for the Project.

Then use the above WMV profile (Default).

Will this profile do the job?

Filename	Wmv 9 DVD Quality 4_3 (3000Kbps).wmv.txt	Download
Description	MediaInfo information
Filesize	5 Kbytes
Downloaded:	228 time(s)

Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

ynotfish

Senior Contributor Location: N.S.W. Australia Joined: May 08, 2009 02:06 Messages: 9977 Offline

Aug 02, 2012 22:47

Jim -

The profile Carl referred to should do the job for you. That's the best quality audio you'll squeeze out of a WMV profile. You might want to check the video bitrate of the clips from your camera and modify the profile to match that.

Cheers - Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

Jim5519

Newbie Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: Jun 24, 2012 18:54 Messages: 35 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 02:09

Thanks Carl and Tony, yes that profile looks really close to what John, who was in the video with me, used for our first video 'Tumblin' Since his camcorder and mine are the same and Tumblin looks and sounds good on Youtube, I will work with that. Whatever editing software he uses was down at the time and I think he was forced to just use what ever was on his PC and ended up using AVI format at 720 X 480, 4.3, at a total bitrate of 29796 kbps. The only difference is he somehow had an Audio bitrate of 1024 kbps in Wav (which I didn't think Youtube recommended but the Wav seemed to work fine) at 32Khz. I know Tony that you mentioned the WMV limitations, is there much difference in his 1024 kbps and the 320 kbps audio bitrates for sound quality since it is a music video? Thanks again
Jim

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Aug 03. 2012 02:26

Windows 7 64-bit, 32 GB Ram, Asus P9X79WS MB, Intel Core i7 3820 Quad core CPU, Asus ENGTX 570 Video Card, WD VelociRapter 600GB 10,000 rpm OS drive, WD Cavier Green 1TB Sata 6.0 storage drive. Panasonic PVGS400 mini DV camcorder, Power Director 10

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 09:59

The theory of MP3 audio frequency response is take the encoding bit rate and divide by 10, gives the high frequency roll off point.

For 320 Kbps that would be 32,000 Hz. Since only dogs can hear that high, humans do not perceive any loss in high frequency response.

CD quality is considered to be 128 Kbps MP3. So any higher encoding rate raises the High frequency response.

Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

Jim5519

Newbie Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: Jun 24, 2012 18:54 Messages: 35 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 11:08

Thanks much Carl
Jim Windows 7 64-bit, 32 GB Ram, Asus P9X79WS MB, Intel Core i7 3820 Quad core CPU, Asus ENGTX 570 Video Card, WD VelociRapter 600GB 10,000 rpm OS drive, WD Cavier Green 1TB Sata 6.0 storage drive. Panasonic PVGS400 mini DV camcorder, Power Director 10

ynotfish

Senior Contributor Location: N.S.W. Australia Joined: May 08, 2009 02:06 Messages: 9977 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 14:28

Hi Jim -

For 4:3 SD videos, there are (of course) other options than WMV. The advantage of WMV is lower file size - the disadvantage is increased compression.

In PD, using a 720x480 profile, you could produce to MPEG-2, MPEG-4, AVC H.264, MOV (all of which can be "customised" - video & audio bitrate).

Of course, whatever you choose, YouTube does its own processing.

Cheers - Tony
Visit PDtoots. PowerDirector Tutorials, tips, free resources & more. Subscribe!
Full linked Tutorial Catalog PDtoots happily supports fellow PowerDirector users!

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 15:21

Quote: The theory of MP3 audio frequency response is take the encoding bit rate and divide by 10, gives the high frequency roll off point.

For 320 Kbps that would be 32,000 Hz. Since only dogs can hear that high, humans do not perceive any loss in high frequency response.

CD quality is considered to be 128 Kbps MP3. So any higher encoding rate raises the High frequency response.

If CD quality were 128 Kbps, that would only be 12,800 Hz. I'm no dog, but I can certainly the difference between the usual MP3 and a CD. That's one reason why I never bothered to get an MP3 player, and why my speakers have super-tweeters. Jerry Schwartz

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 15:49

Quote:

Quote: The theory of MP3 audio frequency response is take the encoding bit rate and divide by 10, gives the high frequency roll off point.

For 320 Kbps that would be 32,000 Hz. Since only dogs can hear that high, humans do not perceive any loss in high frequency response.

CD quality is considered to be 128 Kbps MP3. So any higher encoding rate raises the High frequency response.

If CD quality were 128 Kbps, that would only be 12,800 Hz. I'm no dog, but I can certainly the difference between the usual MP3 and a CD. That's one reason why I never bothered to get an MP3 player, and why my speakers have super-tweeters.

Jerrys, You are correct, a 128 Kbps MP3 is not the hi-fidelity digital format audiophiles want, WAV is better at the cost of much larger audio files.

What made the MP3 so popular, was its compression and good quality sound. It is great format for the internet back when broadband was non-existent.

I can remember when 24 Kbps MP3 was the norm for audio on the dial-up internet.
Talk about poor sound, that was it.

I prefer at least 160 Kbps or 192 Kbps MP3, that gets you 16 KHz or 19.2 KHz.
My hearing does not go up to 16 KHz anymore.

Why do we find so many royality free songs that are MP3? Think about that.

Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 15:56

Quote: I prefer at least 160 Kbps or 192 Kbps MP3, that gets you 16 KHz or 19.2 KHz.
My hearing does not go up to 16 KHz anymore.

Why do we find so many royality free songs that are MP3? Think about that.

I'm not sure where my hearing tops off these days, either, but I can definitely hear the difference.

Based on the "whoompa whoompa" sounds I hear coming out of passing cars, and even sometimes out of earbuds, I think today's generations will be quite happy with POTS quality by the time they reach our age.

As for the royalty-free songs, I always assumed they were stolen. Are you saying it's because they are pale shadows of the "real thing"?

If only they'd have come out with some kind of unscratchable vinyl... I still have some direct-to-disc stuff that is out of this world.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Aug 03. 2012 15:57

Jerry Schwartz

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 16:12

Quote:

Quote: I prefer at least 160 Kbps or 192 Kbps MP3, that gets you 16 KHz or 19.2 KHz.
My hearing does not go up to 16 KHz anymore.

Why do we find so many royalty free songs that are MP3? Think about that.

I'm not sure where my hearing tops off these days, either, but I can definitely hear the difference.

Based on the "whoompa whoompa" sounds I hear coming out of passing cars, and even sometimes out of earbuds, I think today's generations will be quite happy with POTS quality by the time they reach our age.

As for the royalty-free songs, I always assumed they were stolen. Are you saying it's because they are pale shadows of the "real thing"?

If only they'd have come out with some kind of unscratchable vinyl... I still have some direct-to-disc stuff that is out of this world.

Never find unscratchable vinyl. Besides, Vinyl is not as hi-fidelity as Audio CDs. Audio CDs are WAV.

MP3 royalty free music because of the smaller file size.

If you buy a Album DVD of royalty free music, you usually get a WAV and MP3 version on the DVD.
If you buy a download, it is usually MP3 format.

Based on the "whoompa whoompa" sounds I hear coming out of passing cars, and even sometimes out of earbuds, I think today's generations will be quite happy with POTS quality by the time they reach our age.

And the people listening in the car will be deaf soon.
It is the same as being in a factory without ear protection.

Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 16:26

Quote:
Never find unscratchable vinyl. Besides, Vinyl is not as hi-fidelity as Audio CDs. Audio CDs are WAV.

It's all in the mastering. Vinyl was usually second generation, with the first generation being tape. As I recall, the top end tape technology had sprockets. The direct-to-disc skipped the tape step, so it presumably had less noise and better dynamic range. I remember arguing that point with an engineer (Mark Levinson) who claimed that his tape deck had less noise than most control decks.

You've got me curious, now. My daughter's fiance is one of the top recording engineers in the business. I'll have to ask him about the current technology. Jerry Schwartz

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Aug 03, 2012 20:52

Quote:

You've got me curious, now. My daughter's fiance is one of the top recording engineers in the business. I'll have to ask him about the current technology.

I bet he will tell you it is all Digital now.

As in Hard drives.

Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Aug 08, 2012 19:50

Quote:

Quote:

You've got me curious, now. My daughter's fiance is one of the top recording engineers in the business. I'll have to ask him about the current technology.

I bet he will tell you it is all Digital now.

As in Hard drives.

Here's what he said:

Greater dynamic range, more headroom, lower noise and Full frequency spectrum

For the most part it's digital to digital but there are folks that tape all the way till the end and use amazing converts going A to D

I'm sure he tapped that out on his phone. I sent him a followup, but he hasn't responded yet. He works odd hours and travels a lot.

Jerry Schwartz

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Aug 08, 2012 22:15

Quote:

Quote:

You've got me curious, now. My daughter's fiance is one of the top recording engineers in the business. I'll have to ask him about the current technology.

I bet he will tell you it is all Digital now.

As in Hard drives.

Here's what he said:

Greater dynamic range, more headroom, lower noise and Full frequency spectrum

For the most part it's digital to digital but there are folks that tape all the way till the end and use amazing converts going A to D

I'm sure he tapped that out on his phone. I sent him a followup, but he hasn't responded yet. He works odd hours and travels a lot.

That is what I expected.

I do watch TV and see the sound boards that get on screen once in a while. Notice the LED sound level meters, the next time you catch one on screen.

All of the old analog sound boards had analog meters.
The digital boards have the LED level meters.

Here is a digital level meter you can download and use on your computer.
http://minorshill.co.uk/pc2/meters.html#Digital

Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Aug 09, 2012 20:38

Quote: I do watch TV and see the sound boards that get on screen once in a while. Notice the LED sound level meters, the next time you catch one on screen.

All of the old analog sound boards had analog meters.
The digital boards have the LED level meters.

Here is a digital level meter you can download and use on your computer.
http://minorshill.co.uk/pc2/meters.html#Digital

I'm sure you're right. I've spent plenty of time with VU meters; but I've also seen some hybrid equipment. You can't (easily) use a VU meter on a digital board, but you can use an LED meter on an analog board.

I actually still have an FM tuner that supposedly has analog tuning, a digital readout, and I can't figure out how the presets work. I don't have any schematics, not even a block diagram.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Aug 09. 2012 20:41

Jerry Schwartz