DxDiag attached.

Do not be surprised at all Rolfe
Look first at the "weight" of your files and you will see that all of them are smaller so was rendered (absolutely).
If you want to have the same quality you shoud avoid any video rendering !

Two solutions in my opinion:

1. Let try to make your profile (not default), where you should set up better bitrate than default offered by PD
2. use another application

Hi Rolfe -

I don't know whether you may have resized/re-proportioned any of the images you attached... but there's a difference between Capture 1 (original) & the other 2.



If the screen shots are accurate (i.e. a true representation of what's in the produced MPEG-4 & AVC H.264 files), then something has gone wrong in rendering! Look at the sail! In your produced files, are the proportions the SAME as the original???

Cheers - Tony


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

Tony,

What I did was to play the input and output files in WMP full screen. Then I tried to move to approximately the same frame in all three cases. I used Windows 7's Snipping Tool to capture approximately the same sized screen shot, but this is a free-hand tool, resulting in slightly different cropping of my jpegs (but no stretching of the images, etc.).

The camera was panning slightly, to follow the sailor, so the pilings could understandably be a bit blurred in all three cases. But notice the detail of the sailor and sail -- they are degraded.

These screenshots are representative of the issue. I have experimented with increasing the bitrate with a Custom Profile but did not notice any difference.

I hope you are correct that something is wrong in the rendering and is correctable.

I've attached the Properties of the input file (corresponding to Capture1.jpg) as well as of the two output files so you can see the proportions and other details.

Hope this gives you additional ideas.

Thanks,
--rolfe.

I should have clarified something. The "screen shots" captured with the snipping tool are only a portion of the full screen frame in WMP, not the whole frame. That's why you saw a difference in the jpg sizes. As I said above, only the cropping is different -- there is no stretching or other manipulation of the jpegs.

--rolfe.

OK Rolfe -

Thanks for clarifying. The JPEGs have only been cropped - not resized. Then something is wrong with the way the clip is rendered...

... because THAT sail (and the other elements of the scene) is stretched horizontally.

I notice the original clip has a bitrate of about 17MBps, while the produced files are lower (11-13). Have you tried replicating the precise parameters (format, resolution, bitrate) to produce?

Rolfe - I think it'd be really helpful if you could upload (as an attachment) a short clip straight from your camera for members to test. Just about 5-10 seconds would be fine.

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

Tony,

I need to clarify something else -- about the sail. The sail is in the process of being rotated, so its apparent width will depend on which exact frame I stopped WMP on. I did not attempt to stop all 3 videos on precisely the same frame; I just eye-balled it.

You have a pretty sharp eye to notice the sail width differences. I can't see any proportion distortions in the other elements, however.

I'll be back later with results of your other suggestions.

Thanks,
--rolfe.

I did a test comparing the original video shot by the same camera, Samsung HMX-H100 produced with Cyberlink Power Director 9.
I produced the video as a MP4 and compared it to the original without any rendering and I really did not see any degradation in quality in the two videos.

I posted it on Youtube just now to see what the video looked like. Watch the video in HD and see what you think. I have made several videos and posted them using this camera and was pleasantly surprised. I have a Canon which is more expensive but I don't see a appreciable difference. It is a little shaky, but I kept being bumped.
See the video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0s0vOoOrCs Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AMD Phenom ll X4 Processor 3.2ghz (4 CPUs)
ATI Radeon HD5670 1gb
8.00 gb Memory

Attached is a short clip shot at 1080i. The Word doc contains screen shots taken of the original clip in WMP, the Produce MPEG-4 result with Default profile, and the Produce MPEG-4 result with a Custom profile modified to 17M bit rate (like the original).

My conclusion - the two outputs are significantly degraded from the input (see the Word Doc).

My goal is to be able to edit video without noticeable loss in quality. Can anyone suggest how to do better than I did?

Thanks,
--rolfe.

'gator,

Thanks for passing on your experience. I watched your video 1080p, full screen. It looks OK, but to know if there is degradation, I'd have to see the original.

One thing I noticed, which is a separate issue, is that the background (trees, etc.) is jerky while you follow the little cars. I'll bet you don't see that on the original :

You could do me a favor -- download my short clip and process it like you did yours, then upload it here as an attachment. Then I can compare your result with my original directly.

Thanks,
--rolfe.

Here is your video produced H.264 with Cyberlink, There is some degradation but I think from experience that in the Youtube processing you lose some quality. Vimeo seems better in their processing but you will be limited th 720P.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BFicSsSYzM Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AMD Phenom ll X4 Processor 3.2ghz (4 CPUs)
ATI Radeon HD5670 1gb
8.00 gb Memory

Here is your video processed with MP4 files. In comparing your video with the Cyberlink rendered video, I see it about the same if you put them side by side to play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIwJ89BEt2s Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AMD Phenom ll X4 Processor 3.2ghz (4 CPUs)
ATI Radeon HD5670 1gb
8.00 gb Memory

Here is your video rendered in Cyberlink H.264. Windows 8 Pro 64bit
Cameras. Panasonic AG-HMC40, GoPro Hero 3 Black
Edition.

'gator,

I'm not sure what post-processing Youtube performs or my browser, for that matter, so uploading to there is not what I need.

'bulldog,

That's helpful. It looks to me like you get the same degradation that I do. Thus I think the issue is either PD9 or some kind of incompatibility of my particular camera and PD9.

Thanks to both for responding.

--rolfe.

or some kind of incompatibility of my particular camera and PD9

nonsense
read again, what I wrote yesterday

The effects you are seeing has been described in various forms on this forum and is due to the poor handling of interlaced files in PD. PD just line doubles causing awful combing, loses half of the available information and causes all that panning judder people complain about (as well as the softening you are seeing).

Simple test:

Produce a jpeg in paint of 1920x1080. Draw a diagonal line. Render the video in progressive and interlaced format. Take a still from the resulting video file. Attached is the crops to demonstrate. ( If Tony could embed them, that would be great )

First file is original, Second is interlaced, third is progressive. Panasonic SD9, Panasonic TM700, Panasonic SD600, GoPro HD Hero.

Unequivocal test results, Phillip!

Ask & you shall receive...



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

Thanks Tony ...speed of service is impressive as well Panasonic SD9, Panasonic TM700, Panasonic SD600, GoPro HD Hero.

Quote: The effects you are seeing has been described in various forms on this forum and is due to the poor handling of interlaced files in PD. PD just line doubles causing awful combing, loses half of the available information and causes all that panning judder people complain about (as well as the softening you are seeing).

Thank you so much. Great explanation. As I mentioned in the original post, I'm shooting at 1080i. As a result, PD9 is not acceptable to me.

Bankroot:

I'll stick with my 'nonsense' about incompatibility -- i.e. my camera shoots 1080 interlaced, which is not (very) compatible with PD9. Re your suggestions -- I don't think (1) is going to help based on the explanation quoted above. However, I think your (2) is right on.

Thanks to all.

--rolfe.