DVD Encoding

[Da_elf]

I want to do 24p DVDs widescreen, so i just render 720x480 anamorphic at 24fps and encode the mpeg2 like that? what pogram do people use most for dvd creations? i used to use DVD Producer by sonic alot but i see that it doesnt take 24p format.

[Da_elf]

is there anyone who can help me on this one?

[percydaman]

have you tried adobe encore?

[gilpo]

Elf,

We encode straight to MPEG2 at 23.976 fps out of After Effects and load the resulting mpg into Adobe Encore. When you do this, Encore shows it as a 29.976 fps file, but it burns it correctly - plays progressive on those players that support it.

Disclaimer: we have been dissatisfied at Encore's lack of features on many occasions, so if you don't already have it, you may want to look elsewhere. But it is one solution.

[plastic_]

nero recode...
no kidding...try it.
can't do fancy stuff, but dead easy dvd menus and the encoding quality seems to be nice enough for my occasional little dvd projects.
and you probably already got it with your burner.
i've tried encore but it's annoyingly complicated for me, and doesn't offer something i really would need.

[Da_elf]

well this is supposed to be a 45 minute animation i need to encode to DVD with special features etc. so i want it to be a pretty professional looking package. I loved the features in DVD producer, but like i said. no 24p support that i know of. question thugh. why do you use 23.976 fps and not 24? from max ill be using 24fps. as for frame size i want it to be widescreen animorphic. should i use 720x480animorphic from within max?

[gilpo]

23.976 = 24 : 29.97 = 30

24 is not the NTSC spec for progressive. 23.976 is. Set your timeline in Max for film (24fps) and do the conversion in the video editing software of your choice (premiere, after effects, etc).

Since you mentioned 720x480, I'm assuming your doing a region 1 dvd (NTSC) and not PAL. Render your animation at 864x486 with a PIXEL aspect ratio of 1. In your video editing software, you'll change it to a pixel aspect of 1.2 at 23.976 fps. That will give you 720x486, anamorphic and progressive. This WILL NOT result in a quality loss. It is a 1:1 conversion. Then you'll just need to crop off the extra 6 pixels to get your 720x480. When you burn it, it'll play 24fps progressive on progressive scan dvd players. On a 16:9 tv, it'll play full screen. On a 4:3 tv, it'll play letterboxed (with black bars) like it is supposed to.

Try rendering a few seconds of video as a test of the workflow before committing to the final render. Our office spent about 2 months researching formats and frame rates and this is what we came up with that works the best for us. YMMV

This stuff really made our heads hurt, so don't get discouraged. It's not easy.

Good luck!

[panthon]

Why do you need to create a 24p project instead of a 30p project? Are you working with film footage?
Encore mpeg2 compression tends to wash out the video, no contrast, no
saturation...

Gilpo: is it a problem to render from max to (PAL) 720X576 with a pixel aspect of 1.778 and let the dvd show it in 16:9?

[Da_elf]

seeing as how 24p compatibility is found on most DVD players these days why not utilise it. One of the biggest advantage of rendering 24p is a: not worrying about crappy interlacing and b: 6 less frames per second. on a 45 minute animation that 6 frames sure does add up. The mpg encoding i will probably just use tmpgenc. its always worked well for me

[panthon]

well one of the biggest advantage of rendering 24p is a: not worrying about crappy interlacing and b: 6 less frames per second. on a 45 minute animation that 6 frames sure does add up. The mpg encoding i will probably just use tmpgenc. its always worked well for me

I am guessing now, but i do bet that 30p looks better than 24p, considering they both avoid interlacing, but 6 frames more should give you a smoother motion, especially noticeable when rendering walkthroughs...but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it . 24 fps is quite crappy in my opinion, as u can see in the theaters when watching a movie...it flickers quite a lot.
It would be cool to test a little animation with 24p and 30p.
As far as widescreen goes, it gives you a big oomph and I think it helps a lot when showing houses or landscapes...

[Da_elf]

this isnt an arch viz project. hehe.
well. 24p in movies never seemed to bug me really.

[panthon]

this isnt an arch viz project. hehe.
.

Hooray!

[gilpo]

Panthon,

It is always better to render out square pixels out of max. Therefore, you'd render at 1024x576 at a PAR of 1. Do your conversion in post to a PAR of 1.42. Render time is the same and it takes 0 time to convert in post and doesn't affect the quality since it is a linear conversion.

We did numerous comparisons between 24 and 30. We found that we preferred the better image quality of the 24 with a barely noticeable flicker opposed to the lower image quality of 30 with no flicker. Unless you are comparing side-by-side or have a monitor with an extremly high refresh-rate, you don't really notice much of a difference. Most hollywood dvds are done from a 24fps source (I believe) and I don't hear people complaining that their Matrix dvd flickers too much. It is what most people are used to seeing.

It's worth it to me to have a higher overall frame quality.

[panthon]

Panthon,

It is always better to render out square pixels out of max. Therefore, you'd render at 1024x576 at a PAR of 1. Do your conversion in post to a PAR of 1.42. Render time is the same and it takes 0 time to convert in post and doesn't affect the quality since it is a linear conversion.

Thanks, I will give it a try

[plastic_]

It is always better to render out square pixels out of max. Therefore, you'd render at 1024x576 at a PAR of 1. Do your conversion in post to a PAR of 1.42. Render time is the same and it takes 0 time to convert in post and doesn't affect the quality since it is a linear conversion.

why is it better to render square pixels?
i would assume that it would be best to render anamorphic straight out of max, then no size/ratio conversion is needed at all.
and it renders faster at 720x576, than 1024x576.
am i missing something?