Messages posted by jduffy09

Quote: Fascinating. The marketing sheet states "The easy-to-use HDR-CX190 ultra-lightweight Handycam® camcorder records stunning 1920x1080p Full HD video and 5.3MP pictures;" and yet the manual clearly shows only 1920x1080/60i or 1440x1080/60i settings. Guess which one is reality-based?

With that settled, I'd recommend using the higher quality 1920x1080/60i 24Mbps (FX) setting rather than the HQ setting (1440x1080/60i 9Mbps), even though it will increase your produced video's file size. The 1920x1080 setting uses the HD wide screen 16:9 ratio, while 1440x1080 uses the old-style TV "boxy" 4:3 ratio.

Either way, I think using 30p is the way to go when producing your videos.

optodata, thanks for your help.

Question: Unless I'm reading incorrectly, you have suggested I convert 60fps interlaced to 30fps progressive. The reading I've done online tonight suggests I should double the interlaced frame rate (in this case to 120fps) when deinterlacing, whereas you seem to be indicating I cut it in half. Am I misunderstanding something?

Quote: PS... When creating the bitrate speed in the custom production profile, select the highest one available for all options, ie, 45000 kbps or what have you. It will tell you the highest value available. Select it.

Question: Why would you create a custom profile to match the original resolution but choose a much higher bitrate than your original file?

The 1440x1080 defaults to 4:3 but you can change it manually to 16:9, which I have done. The only reason I used the HQ setting was b/c I only wanted to take one card and didn't know how much video I'd be shooting. Turned out, not much. I used to shoot EVERYTHING and then edit down later but I've gotten a little more selective about only filming the crap that I think I actually might want to see again!

HDR-CX190

Unfortunately my camcorder only records in 60i. So that means I should select or create a 30p option for encoding, right?

Quote: One thought is what is your output media destination? Creating a progressive output for a DVD just means reconverting back to an interlaced format when you burn the disk, but if you're going to be watching on your computer or uploading to YouTube then progressive would be preferred.

Thank you, your information was extremely helpful.

Answers to your questions. In the last few years I have gotten away from burning discs. In the past I've used PD to upload home videos directly to YouTube while producing a wmv copy to save on my hard drive. The quality was satisfactory to me because I was using an SD camcorder.

Last fall the family got me a Sony HD camcorder. I still upload the home videos to YouTube, so that can be lower quality, but I want to start saving my permanent copies in a decent HD format. If I want to watch an older video I will stream it to my blu-ray using Mezzmo or I will actually copy it to a thumb drive and plug it in to the player.

Since my last post I read online that the issues I'm having with interlacing are more noticeable on a computer monitor and may not be an issue on the TV. If this is the case I won't worry about it much since the TV is my primary intended viewing method but it sounds as if progressive is probably best if I'm not planning to burn discs?

I visited Hawaii Volcanoes National Park last week and produced an 8 minute video. I'm trying it in several different formats so I can compare quality as well as file size. I'm not a videophile by any means but I want it to look great but not take up a ton of space. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but a gig for an 8 minute video seems like a lot to me! Maybe I need to grow out of that!

I want to make sure I understand something. Are MP4 and h.264 the same, in that the final product is an MP4 file, they are just different methods of doing so? Are there any advantages to one method over the other? I tried a video using the SVRT suggested product but simply changed it from interlaced to progressive and was satisfied with the result. I'm sure I could create a custom mp4 profile as well but again, are there advantages to h.264 over MP4? Is WMV not a good option in most people's minds these days?

So many choices!

I'm still interested in thoughts on my question regarding interlaced vs. progressive. SVRT always seems to recommend an interlaced format for my videos but I've been disappointed that it seems to result in horizontal lines during motion and a saw-tooth effect on vertical lines. It appears that my original video clips were in interlaced format so I assume this is why SVRT is suggesting that for my final product? I don't have my user manual handy for my camera at work today but do you think this is a setting I could change at the camera and result in less rendering PowerDirector?

I tried the intelligent SVRT. It suggested 1440x1080 m2ts but interlaced. The finished product, all the straight lines had a mild "sawtooth" effect. Is this a problem with interlaced videos? I produced again with virtually the same settings but changed to progressive and it appears OK.

I looked back at my first attempt, which was 720p wmv. With the exception of it being 720p, the other settings appear very similar to my original video clips but it uses much less hard drive space, about half as much. To me there isn't a noticeable difference between the 720p wmv file and the 1080p mt2s file.

What are your thoughts? Are there advantages to h.264 avc over wmv or what?

Hello All,

Been using PowerDirector Version 10 for a while and recently upgraded to Version 12. Looking for recommendations on output formats for my home videos. In the past I've always just used the upload to online YouTube format (wmv 720p or 1080p) but I understand there may be better options I haven't tried and I don't have the expertise to choose which is "best." I don't burn my videos to disc anymore and prefer to keep them on a backed-up hard drive.

I'm not doing any serious projects, just your average home video user with a store-bought Sony HD camcorder. For most stuff 720 or even SD looks fine but I recently took a vacation and shot some really nice scenery so I was thinking of producing it in 1080p. I have read that h.264 AVC might be the way to go but I am unsure which selection to use. Beyond 720 and 1080 I'm not really sure what the other numbers mean to me.

I'm sure this topic has been debated here before so I'm sorry for starting a new topic. I did a quick search but didn't find the answer I was looking for.

Thanks CubbyHouseFilms

So you prefer MP2 DVD HQ even to MP4?

Have you experimented much with h264 with an SD source or not?

Anyone else?

Hello All,

I'm just curious to know what encoding formats people have had good luck with. Here is my situation.

I have yet to get into the HD world of home video. I am using a JVC Everio camcorder that records in MOD format. It isn't the greatest, but for an SD camcorder it does pretty well.

Within the last year or two I have stopped burning discs altogether. For sharing with family I upload to youtube and all of my TVs either have DirecTV with Mediashare, which allows me to view my home videos over my home network on any TV in my house, or Sony blu-ray with DLNA. (The blu-ray plays better quality and seems less buggy.)

Before purchasing CyberLink I'd used Windows Movie Maker so most of my videos up to this point are WMV format. It's decent and has always worked fine but I recently took a vacation to Hawaii and want to do this video in the best SD format possible while not hogging a ton of disc space.

I've obviously tried most of the relevant WMV options for DVD quality as well as MP2 DVD HQ, SP, etc. as well as MP4. I wasn't impressed with how my videos came out encoded with MP4. MP2 DVDHQ looked pretty good on my TV but for some reason on my computer it seems to confuse Windows Media Player and it alternates back and forth between 4:3 and 16:9 playback even though the entire video is 16:9 and was produced as such in PD10.

I have not experimented much with H264 but I did do one short test and it looked really promising.

Sorry for the novel. Does anyone have any suggestions? Anyone in a similar situation with a non-HD camcorder and you've found an encoding format that gives really good results?