|
|
Posted by Ken Maltby on 02/18/07 15:18
<nospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_XVBh.76918$qO4.5069@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:53qcdeF1sqq4vU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Gene" <genes@wildblue.net> wrote in message
>> news:W7qBh.36$EP6.44076@news.sisna.com...
>> > Looks like plugging a camcorder into a
>> > DVR is a MUCH faster, and from what I have seen, gives as good as, if
>> > not
>> > better
>> > quality than DVD-Rs generated from a PC program.
>>
>> Then I'm sure you'll be happy doing it that way. First of all, you're
>> wrong -- a DVR will not produce as good a DVD as _properly_ transcoded
>> and
>> authored DVD produced on a computer.
>
> That's more than a bit overstated. It depends on the quality
> of your source material, and of the codec used on the capture
> device. E.g. I've done side-by-side comparisons of DVD
> and broadcast cable TV material captured direct to MPEG
> with a stock Hauppauge PVR-150, and capturing to AVI
> (via Dscaler) then transcoding to MPEG. I've rarely been
> able to duplicate the quality of direct captures. So what's
> the point of spending hours and days transcoding? It's
> not a matter of "good enough"; the direct captures have
> been AS GOOD AS manual transcoding in every case.
>
PT will never get the point. Do a Google "Groups"search
with: PTravel "Ken Maltby", and see what you get.
For PT all video must be treated as if it is the DV-25 from
his 3CCD camcorder.
Luck;
Ken
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|