A totally black frame means no difference and therefore no loss of quality. That is the true way to judge quality loss. If you place your render on the Vegas timeline above the original and place the track composite in Difference mode you will see the difference between the original video and the render. Only you can decide if the quality is the same. As the bit-rate drops, the difference in quality will show the AVCHD to hold up better at lower bit-rates. If you didn’t see any difference in quality that only means that the quality difference was imperceptible at that bit-rate but it was there. I thought that AVC compresses more efficiently for a given quality, but in this case it’s a tie!” “The two resulting Bluy-ray ready files look identical to me as far as video quality, too. You rendered at the same bit-rate so you got the same file size but you did not get the same quality even though you couldn’t tell the difference. So you can get higher quality AVCHD at a lower bit-rate which means you can put more AVCHD on a Blu-ray at the same quality as MPEG-2. You need 25Mbps MPEG-2 to equal the quality of 16Mbps AVCHD. What you’re not realizing is the quality difference. So why does anyone prefer AVC over MPEG-2?” Importing it in to DVD Architect 6, the disc space used ALSO is 24.2 GB. The MainConcept MPEG-2 file was rendered at 17.8Mbps CBR, took 2 hours 16 minutes to render, and is 22.75GB in size. Importing it in to DVD Architect 6, the disc space used is 24.2 GB. The Sony AVC was rendered at 18Mbps, took 4 hours 19 minutes to render, and is 22.83GB in size. “I rendered it both with Sony AVC and MainConcept MPEG-2 M2V files. I can’t say why because I prefer MPEG-2 for my Blu-ray projects because it’s easier to work with and renders faster and time is money. “I believe that a number of members prefer rendering to (Sony) AVC over Mainconcept MPEG-2 (M2V) when creating Blu-ray files. I thought that AVC compresses more efficiently for a given quality, but in this case it’s a tie! Can anyone explain this, please, as for future reference I would like to know if it’s maybe just the length of the video that created these differences, as well as similarities, or if others, too have experienced HD MPEG-2 to render soooo much quicker than AVC files, have them take up the same space and look just as good as the other? Was it also maybe perhaps because I compressed the AVC from 21 to 18Mbps? Thank you in advance. So why does anyone prefer AVC over MPEG-2? Have I just experienced an anomaly, or is this typical? The two resulting Bluy-ray ready files look identical to me as far as video quality, too.
I rendered it both with Sony AVC and MainConcept MPEG-2 M2V files. My Sony HDR-AX2000 HD Camcorder recorded the event in AVC at 21Mbps. Take, for example, the 3 hour Conservative Bat Mitzvah service that I shot last Saturday morning. WHY?!! I ask this because in a real-world experience I have found that AVC requires more overhead to deal and work with.
I believe that a number of members prefer rendering to (Sony) AVC over Mainconcept MPEG-2 (M2V) when creating Blu-ray files.
0 kommentar(er)
