|
DVD Flick movie quality problem
|
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
28. October 2008 @ 14:29 |
Link to this message
|
Hi guys!
Long story short, I'm on a quest to eradicate NERO out of my PC
replacing it by other amazing freewares!
Now I came across DVD Flick since i googled "free Avi to DVD"
so I tried it....
I wanted to compare the output quality of DVD Flick versus NERO Vision....
So i took the same Avi movie and used both application using all default options in both also...
It was kinda like a "Next Next Next => Burn" kinda thing....
Well i'm sad to admint that NERO Vision's quality was far greator than DVD Flick's quality...
The movie came way too much pixalated using DVD Flick!
Here's the GSpot Codec Information of both generated movie:
NERO VISION
DVD FLICK
Since i left all the default options, why NERO's quality is better?
And then how can I fix my pixel problem in DVD Flick?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2008 @ 15:09
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. October 2008 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
DVD Flick outputs to a folder on the PC.
When that is played back - how does it look.
This isn't relevant, but I noticed that your DVD Flick example performed 3:2 pulldown.
Can you show the source in Gspot.
I only ask because I didn't think it would do that unless it was using a script from the likes of Avisynth.
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
28. October 2008 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
Hi attar!
Thanx for replying!
Playback from my PC looks the same...
its still pixelated...
Here's the source's GSpot Codec Information:
And here's a side by side pixel comparison:
Then how to make DVD Flick output in the same quality as NERO does?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2008 @ 16:07
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. October 2008 @ 17:11 |
Link to this message
|
I don't know why the difference and I haven't noticed it before, but I don't have Nero installed at the moment, so maybe it's improved since my version (6)..
Could you try 'FAVC' for the conversion to compare it to the others?
Thanks for the info about the AVI - it's film content (23.976 fps) which is why it's doing the 3:2 pulldown to 29.97 - I've only seen 25fps before from TV recordings - my sheltered life I guess.
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
28. October 2008 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. October 2008 @ 17:34
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. October 2008 @ 17:48 |
Link to this message
|
Pulldown isn't a bad thing.
It's inserting a flag to tell the DVD player that it needs to insert extra frames to allow the movie to play back at the correct speed for the TV display..
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. October 2008 @ 18:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by eSkRo:
i'll try FAVC!
i'll post a GSpot Codec Information when its done!
but is there a way to prevent DVD FLICK from doing a 3:2 pulldown?
Pulldown is the correct way to do it, it's one of Nero's shortcomings that it doesn't.
Did you use the same video bitrates in your tests? Did you use 2 pass encoding?
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
29. October 2008 @ 22:12 |
Link to this message
|
i tried the 2 pass encoding but it didnt fix my pixel problem...
even if alot of people hate NERO (wich i can understand why)
i have to admit that it really does a better job than DVD Flick...
|
|
Peshtigo
Senior Member
|
29. October 2008 @ 22:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by eSkRo:
i tried the 2 pass encoding but it didnt fix my pixel problem...
even if alot of people hate NERO (wich i can understand why)
i have to admit that it really does a better job than DVD Flick...
Wow. You just wounded a lot of pride here. This should be interesting. Personally, I think they both stink.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. October 2008 @ 22:31
|
Moderator
|
30. October 2008 @ 06:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use Flick heavily and just looking at the screenshot further up the page it has to be said - how can you say Flick's doing a bad job when you're asking it to convert something of such appallingly low quality ?.
(i admit to being no expert at understanding Gspot's info and am judging purely by the screenshot btw).
If ever i come across AVI's that look as bad as that they get deleted straight away, they certainly don't get converted to a.n.other format - remember - 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'..
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. October 2008 @ 07:13
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
30. October 2008 @ 17:37 |
Link to this message
|
im not saying DVD Flick is doing a bad bad job....
but im saying NERO does a better job!
|
Moderator
|
30. October 2008 @ 18:05 |
Link to this message
|
That's here nor there, you're entitled to your own opinion :)
..but would still like to know if the Hulk AVI in question is of poor quality (as the screenshot seems to suggest) or not ?..
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. October 2008 @ 19:23 |
Link to this message
|
I've used Nero many times and have been pleased with the output. Most complaints surrounding Nero usually had to do with audio sync problems.
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
31. October 2008 @ 03:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MysticE:
I've used Nero many times and have been pleased with the output. Most complaints surrounding Nero usually had to do with audio sync problems.
I personally never had audio sync problems at all!
maybe i got lucky who knows?
|
Moderator
|
31. October 2008 @ 05:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
would still like to know if the Hulk AVI in question is of poor quality (as the screenshot seems to suggest) or not ?..
edit- in fact i give up, you're obviously not going to answer, so i just give up :)
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. October 2008 @ 05:47
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
31. October 2008 @ 06:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
Originally posted by creaky:
would still like to know if the Hulk AVI in question is of poor quality (as the screenshot seems to suggest) or not ?..
edit- in fact i give up, you're obviously not going to answer, so i just give up :)
oops sorry...
the source AVI has good quality!
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 13:49 |
Link to this message
|
If that's good quality get your eyes tested... To me it looks like flick has done a better job as the graininess of the image is less "blurred" showing better high frequency resolution.
Where are these "pixellations".. all I see is blurry noisy low quality cam type video in evidence. The screenshot isn't even of the same frame.. so it's an invalid comparison.
We are obviously wasting our time here.. in use there is no difference between the encodes done by flick (except it will do pulldown properly) and nero... they take the file in and output the same thing... except nero seems to take 40% longer to do it. With flick you have a choice of encoders which you can tweak to get better results.. nero gives you no such opportunity..
99 times out of 100 these types of topics are no more than some fanboy spamming their favourite app, like Pesh who trashes both because he is a confirmed fanboy/spammer of payware also.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. October 2008 @ 13:56
|
Moderator
|
31. October 2008 @ 13:54 |
Link to this message
|
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
|
eSkRo
Junior Member
|
31. October 2008 @ 17:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
I'm glad it's not just me.
eSkRo - i don't have the movie to hand so here's an example picture i found on the net, your screenshot looks nowhere like this - http://www.wallpaperez.net/wallpaper/mov...e-Hulk-1562.jpg
comments on your own screenshot compared to this ???...???
I know ive should have chosen a better screenshot...
the screenshot had to come blurry cuz that scene
is blurry in the movie.... the camera moves really fast...
ive should have chosen a better screenshot...
I also went to DVD Flicks forum and asked over there
about my problem and they said they know that
FFmpeg (the encoder currently used by DVD Flick) has limitations
so they are beta tesing DVD Flick with Mpeg2enc encoder
http://www.dvdflick.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1592
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. October 2008 @ 17:30
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
31. October 2008 @ 18:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by varnull:
... in use there is no difference between the encodes done by flick (except it will do pulldown properly) and nero... they take the file in and output the same thing... except nero seems to take 40% longer to do it. With flick you have a choice of encoders which you can tweak to get better results.. nero gives you no such opportunity..
99 times out of 100 these types of topics are no more than some fanboy spamming their favourite app, like Pesh who trashes both because he is a confirmed fanboy/spammer of payware also.
Actually speed wise they are about the same for me (Nero 7). Unless my version of Flick is old, I see no encoder choices( ???)
Also note the Nero version had a higher bitrate and was encoded at 704 vs. 720.
|
