Posted by PTravel on 02/21/07 21:18

"Gene" <genes@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:m22Dh.30$Cx3.371886@news.sisna.com...
..
> Once the two DVD-Rs were burned & tested to be sure they were
> good, the camcorder tape would be rewound & used over & over
> again. It's a really economical way to shoot a LOT of inexpensive
> footage. Total cost for the two is only ~ $0.60/USD, which is a LOT
> less than archiving tapes.

And it's a really good way to mess up the heads and the transport mechanism
and, also, to increase the likelihood of significant drop-outs. It's fine
if the risk is acceptable for your purposes, but you shouldn't be
recommending this as a standard methodology. Tape is cheap and the best
archive medium around.


> I have no idea why TMPGEnc DVD Author 3 produced such
> good A/V - and had the smallest file size?

Really? I explained it several times. Short version: most consumer
software packages compromise on time versus transcode quality. Stand-alone
hardware transcoders (such as in DVD recorders) do single-pass, rather than
multiple-pass transcodes. If you had used tmpgenc, rather than their
authoring package, and had tweaked it appropriately, you would have done
better than your "8." However, for your intended use, I agree it's
overkill, and a DVR should do fine. Again, this shouldn't be a blanket
recommendation -- those who want to edit or don't mind the transcode time to
produce maximum quality are better off with a software solution.

> 1. There is no benefit to me to use a PC & software.

Agreed, but the operative words are, "to me." Different people with
different requirements will come up with a different conclusion.

[Back to original message]