|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/18/07 18:04
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SsKdnbgYEL-h80XYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> <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.
And just when I though we were getting along.
Perhaps if you didn't lie about this all the time, I'd have a little more
respect for you.
This thread asked, in a general sense, the _best_ way to produce DVDs. As
you well know, your little toy mpeg cards are no match for serious software.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|