MOVIE MAKER QUALITY GONE?

Thanks for your "warm" welcome and advice.
I have concluded and had confirmed, that the final DVD image is superior
when "capturing" in WMV and decompressing to MPEG-2 , as opposed to
compressing from DV-AVI (Caps ok ?) to MPEG-2.
Something within the codec has I suspect gone screwy.
Full maintainence is conducted weekly, which of course includes
DEFRAGMENTATION

"Cari (MS-MVP)" wrote:

> Your Caps Lock key seems to be stuck, which could be a problem.
>
> Capturing in DV-AVI will give the best resolution. So will defragging the
> hard drive before capturing.
> --
> Cari (MS-MVP)
> Printing & Imaging
>
>
>
> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CCEB1C66-CB95-4805-9985-EDEB2E74BBF0@microsoft.com...

> > CAPTURING FROM CAMCORDER TO WMV WAS GIVING A 100% QUALITY READING USING
> > THE
> > AVI CODEC TOOL. NOW, I'M ONLY GETTING A QUALITY READING OF 70%, WHICH IS
> > VISIBLY INFERIOR. LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED
> > THIS.
> > XP HAS UPDATED TO SP2 - COULD THIS BE THE PROBLEM?

>
>
>

Alan,
I'm suprised you find compressing to wmv, then compressing to Mpeg actually
gives a better result than capturing as dv-avi, which is a like for like
capture, so no quality loss, no compression from the tape, then just
compressing once to dvd.
You cannot decompress the quality from WMV to dvd, it's compressing it, but
using a different codec.
What is this reading you mention? Can you run through the settings you
choose when you capture.

As for Cari's mention of the cap's lock key, we try to read tens of messages
every day and give construcvtive advice, anything which makes this harder is
a pain in the butt, and caps is not only hard to read, but in on-line
forums/discussions is counted as shouting - ie rude. Of course the use of
caps for items such as dv-avi is fine when needed.

--
Graham Hughes
MVP Digital Media
www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
www.dvds2treasure.com
www.simplydv.com


"ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A497F75-E4E2-4C5B-B102-82DB98CEDB18@microsoft.com...

> Thanks for your "warm" welcome and advice.
> I have concluded and had confirmed, that the final DVD image is superior
> when "capturing" in WMV and decompressing to MPEG-2 , as opposed to
> compressing from DV-AVI (Caps ok ?) to MPEG-2.
> Something within the codec has I suspect gone screwy.
> Full maintainence is conducted weekly, which of course includes
> DEFRAGMENTATION
>
> "Cari (MS-MVP)" wrote:
>

>> Your Caps Lock key seems to be stuck, which could be a problem.
>>
>> Capturing in DV-AVI will give the best resolution. So will defragging
>> the
>> hard drive before capturing.
>> --
>> Cari (MS-MVP)
>> Printing & Imaging
>>
>>
>>
>> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:CCEB1C66-CB95-4805-9985-EDEB2E74BBF0@microsoft.com...

>> > CAPTURING FROM CAMCORDER TO WMV WAS GIVING A 100% QUALITY READING USING
>> > THE
>> > AVI CODEC TOOL. NOW, I'M ONLY GETTING A QUALITY READING OF 70%, WHICH
>> > IS
>> > VISIBLY INFERIOR. LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED
>> > THIS.
>> > XP HAS UPDATED TO SP2 - COULD THIS BE THE PROBLEM?

>>
>>
>>

Graham,
Thanks for your input.
I arrived at the Movie Maker, capture to WMV situation, after literally
months of playing around . I'm retired and have lots of time. Truthfully, I
was so disappointed with the quality of a software produced "Home Movie" DVD
I went searching for quality. I have captured/transferred so much Mini-dv and
digital 8 to the PC for processing, it makes my head spin just thinking of it.
Anyway, In desperation, some months ago, I opened up Movie Maker, captured
in DV-AVI Pal and then in High Quality Video (pal), which is WMV progressive
The difference was very noticable. It did not matter what encoding program
I used to create an MPEG -2 or ISO file, The result was MUCH superior when
the original capture was WMV.
I collected a bunch of DVDs and took them to a friend who runs a Video
Broadcast type company and he and his staff all picked out the
WMV/MPEG-2/DVDs as superior.
They also assumed it was a DV-AVI/MPEG-2/DVD sequence. Not so.
The AVI CODEC information tool I have referred to :
http://avicodec.duby.info is what reads a 100% file quality,-- or used
to. Truthfully I'm not that clear what it's reading but I know when it
says 100% the video looks wonderful. When it reads 70% it looks bad ---and
that's before it gets to MPEG-2.
DV-AVI type 2 , irrespective of capture/transfer program clocks in at 90%
quality using the AVIcodec tool. It's a good guage if nothing else.
WMV , after completing update to XP-SP2 is , out of the blue, only reading
70--75 % max. It looks horrible.
The terminology I used, Compress/decompress is, I'm sure incorrect. My
thinking is/was, WMV---200MB, opens up to, for example, 400+ MB when encoded
to MPEG-2. Where as starting with DV AVI of say, 800 MB it compresses down
to, for example,300MB. Hence, I began wondering if "expanding" a captured
file was beneficial as opposed to shrinking, which is not beneficial. Yes, I
realise WMV is compressed. Bottom line though, for me at least, the results
were excellent. Even viewing on a 53" TV .
Trying to get back my 100% WMV. I suspect a codec parameter has defaulted
to "GOOD" quality instead of "High Quality". I cannot find the
window/program that would allow an adjustment of the Windows WMV9 , which I
am sure was available to me for configuring parameters. It's gone.
Thanks,
Alan.

"Graham Hughes" wrote:

> Alan,
> I'm suprised you find compressing to wmv, then compressing to Mpeg actually
> gives a better result than capturing as dv-avi, which is a like for like
> capture, so no quality loss, no compression from the tape, then just
> compressing once to dvd.
> You cannot decompress the quality from WMV to dvd, it's compressing it, but
> using a different codec.
> What is this reading you mention? Can you run through the settings you
> choose when you capture.
>
> As for Cari's mention of the cap's lock key, we try to read tens of messages
> every day and give construcvtive advice, anything which makes this harder is
> a pain in the butt, and caps is not only hard to read, but in on-line
> forums/discussions is counted as shouting - ie rude. Of course the use of
> caps for items such as dv-avi is fine when needed.
>
> --
> Graham Hughes
> MVP Digital Media
> www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
> www.dvds2treasure.com
> www.simplydv.com
>
>
> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8A497F75-E4E2-4C5B-B102-82DB98CEDB18@microsoft.com...

> > Thanks for your "warm" welcome and advice.
> > I have concluded and had confirmed, that the final DVD image is superior
> > when "capturing" in WMV and decompressing to MPEG-2 , as opposed to
> > compressing from DV-AVI (Caps ok ?) to MPEG-2.
> > Something within the codec has I suspect gone screwy.
> > Full maintainence is conducted weekly, which of course includes
> > DEFRAGMENTATION
> >
> > "Cari (MS-MVP)" wrote:
> >

> >> Your Caps Lock key seems to be stuck, which could be a problem.
> >>
> >> Capturing in DV-AVI will give the best resolution. So will defragging
> >> the
> >> hard drive before capturing.
> >> --
> >> Cari (MS-MVP)
> >> Printing & Imaging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:CCEB1C66-CB95-4805-9985-EDEB2E74BBF0@microsoft.com...
> >> > CAPTURING FROM CAMCORDER TO WMV WAS GIVING A 100% QUALITY READING USING
> >> > THE
> >> > AVI CODEC TOOL. NOW, I'M ONLY GETTING A QUALITY READING OF 70%, WHICH
> >> > IS
> >> > VISIBLY INFERIOR. LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED
> >> > THIS.
> >> > XP HAS UPDATED TO SP2 - COULD THIS BE THE PROBLEM?
> >>
> >>
> >>

>
>
>

Hi Alan,
I do it for a living and have done for years
One thing that may make a difference here is, I notice you display on a 53"
tv, I assume this is a lcd or similar screen. This will make a difference,
as normal crt screens display video using an ingerlaced signal, whereas the
lcd/plasma options will best view using progressive, which the WMV would be.
I would check to ensure you still have the latest versions of DirectX,
windows media encoder and WMP. If you need to install newer versions then
install one at a time, from a saved download to the pc, rebooting after each
install.

Graham


--
Graham Hughes
MVP Digital Media
www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
www.dvds2treasure.com
www.simplydv.com


"ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7F739415-03A9-4755-9085-023E5C5AE951@microsoft.com...

> Graham,
> Thanks for your input.
> I arrived at the Movie Maker, capture to WMV situation, after literally
> months of playing around . I'm retired and have lots of time. Truthfully,
> I
> was so disappointed with the quality of a software produced "Home Movie"
> DVD
> I went searching for quality. I have captured/transferred so much Mini-dv
> and
> digital 8 to the PC for processing, it makes my head spin just thinking of
> it.
> Anyway, In desperation, some months ago, I opened up Movie Maker, captured
> in DV-AVI Pal and then in High Quality Video (pal), which is WMV
> progressive
> The difference was very noticable. It did not matter what encoding
> program
> I used to create an MPEG -2 or ISO file, The result was MUCH superior when
> the original capture was WMV.
> I collected a bunch of DVDs and took them to a friend who runs a Video
> Broadcast type company and he and his staff all picked out the
> WMV/MPEG-2/DVDs as superior.
> They also assumed it was a DV-AVI/MPEG-2/DVD sequence. Not so.
> The AVI CODEC information tool I have referred to :
> http://avicodec.duby.info is what reads a 100% file quality,-- or used
> to. Truthfully I'm not that clear what it's reading but I know when it
> says 100% the video looks wonderful. When it reads 70% it looks
> bad ---and
> that's before it gets to MPEG-2.
> DV-AVI type 2 , irrespective of capture/transfer program clocks in at 90%
> quality using the AVIcodec tool. It's a good guage if nothing else.
> WMV , after completing update to XP-SP2 is , out of the blue, only reading
> 70--75 % max. It looks horrible.
> The terminology I used, Compress/decompress is, I'm sure incorrect. My
> thinking is/was, WMV---200MB, opens up to, for example, 400+ MB when
> encoded
> to MPEG-2. Where as starting with DV AVI of say, 800 MB it compresses
> down
> to, for example,300MB. Hence, I began wondering if "expanding" a
> captured
> file was beneficial as opposed to shrinking, which is not beneficial. Yes,
> I
> realise WMV is compressed. Bottom line though, for me at least, the
> results
> were excellent. Even viewing on a 53" TV .
> Trying to get back my 100% WMV. I suspect a codec parameter has defaulted
> to "GOOD" quality instead of "High Quality". I cannot find the
> window/program that would allow an adjustment of the Windows WMV9 , which
> I
> am sure was available to me for configuring parameters. It's gone.
> Thanks,
> Alan.
>
> "Graham Hughes" wrote:
>

>> Alan,
>> I'm suprised you find compressing to wmv, then compressing to Mpeg
>> actually
>> gives a better result than capturing as dv-avi, which is a like for like
>> capture, so no quality loss, no compression from the tape, then just
>> compressing once to dvd.
>> You cannot decompress the quality from WMV to dvd, it's compressing it,
>> but
>> using a different codec.
>> What is this reading you mention? Can you run through the settings you
>> choose when you capture.
>>
>> As for Cari's mention of the cap's lock key, we try to read tens of
>> messages
>> every day and give construcvtive advice, anything which makes this harder
>> is
>> a pain in the butt, and caps is not only hard to read, but in on-line
>> forums/discussions is counted as shouting - ie rude. Of course the use of
>> caps for items such as dv-avi is fine when needed.
>>
>> --
>> Graham Hughes
>> MVP Digital Media
>> www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
>> www.dvds2treasure.com
>> www.simplydv.com
>>
>>
>> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:8A497F75-E4E2-4C5B-B102-82DB98CEDB18@microsoft.com...

>> > Thanks for your "warm" welcome and advice.
>> > I have concluded and had confirmed, that the final DVD image is
>> > superior
>> > when "capturing" in WMV and decompressing to MPEG-2 , as opposed to
>> > compressing from DV-AVI (Caps ok ?) to MPEG-2.
>> > Something within the codec has I suspect gone screwy.
>> > Full maintainence is conducted weekly, which of course includes
>> > DEFRAGMENTATION
>> >
>> > "Cari (MS-MVP)" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your Caps Lock key seems to be stuck, which could be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Capturing in DV-AVI will give the best resolution. So will defragging
>> >> the
>> >> hard drive before capturing.
>> >> --
>> >> Cari (MS-MVP)
>> >> Printing & Imaging
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:CCEB1C66-CB95-4805-9985-EDEB2E74BBF0@microsoft.com...
>> >> > CAPTURING FROM CAMCORDER TO WMV WAS GIVING A 100% QUALITY READING
>> >> > USING
>> >> > THE
>> >> > AVI CODEC TOOL. NOW, I'M ONLY GETTING A QUALITY READING OF 70%,
>> >> > WHICH
>> >> > IS
>> >> > VISIBLY INFERIOR. LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE
>> >> > CAUSED
>> >> > THIS.
>> >> > XP HAS UPDATED TO SP2 - COULD THIS BE THE PROBLEM?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>

>>
>>
>>

Thanks Graham.
The quality seen is mostly on a 53", which is switchable and displays I + P.
On an old 21 inch TV and even on the PC monitor the "difference" is obvious.
Yes, I did not work within your industry, that's why I took a bunch of tapes
and DVDs to my friend who is in the "hardware" side of the business. Viewing
on his Pro monitors-- WMV----MPEG-2-----DVD looked much better.
Anyway, thank you. Think I have resolved the issue.
Un-installed XP-SP2 all my codecs.
Restored system (non destructive) to a few weeks back , reinstalled my codec
pack and my 100% WMV is back.
Alan

"Graham Hughes" wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> I do it for a living and have done for years
> One thing that may make a difference here is, I notice you display on a 53"
> tv, I assume this is a lcd or similar screen. This will make a difference,
> as normal crt screens display video using an ingerlaced signal, whereas the
> lcd/plasma options will best view using progressive, which the WMV would be.
> I would check to ensure you still have the latest versions of DirectX,
> windows media encoder and WMP. If you need to install newer versions then
> install one at a time, from a saved download to the pc, rebooting after each
> install.
>
> Graham
>
>
> --
> Graham Hughes
> MVP Digital Media
> www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
> www.dvds2treasure.com
> www.simplydv.com
>
>
> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7F739415-03A9-4755-9085-023E5C5AE951@microsoft.com...

> > Graham,
> > Thanks for your input.
> > I arrived at the Movie Maker, capture to WMV situation, after literally
> > months of playing around . I'm retired and have lots of time. Truthfully,
> > I
> > was so disappointed with the quality of a software produced "Home Movie"
> > DVD
> > I went searching for quality. I have captured/transferred so much Mini-dv
> > and
> > digital 8 to the PC for processing, it makes my head spin just thinking of
> > it.
> > Anyway, In desperation, some months ago, I opened up Movie Maker, captured
> > in DV-AVI Pal and then in High Quality Video (pal), which is WMV
> > progressive
> > The difference was very noticable. It did not matter what encoding
> > program
> > I used to create an MPEG -2 or ISO file, The result was MUCH superior when
> > the original capture was WMV.
> > I collected a bunch of DVDs and took them to a friend who runs a Video
> > Broadcast type company and he and his staff all picked out the
> > WMV/MPEG-2/DVDs as superior.
> > They also assumed it was a DV-AVI/MPEG-2/DVD sequence. Not so.
> > The AVI CODEC information tool I have referred to :
> > http://avicodec.duby.info is what reads a 100% file quality,-- or used
> > to. Truthfully I'm not that clear what it's reading but I know when it
> > says 100% the video looks wonderful. When it reads 70% it looks
> > bad ---and
> > that's before it gets to MPEG-2.
> > DV-AVI type 2 , irrespective of capture/transfer program clocks in at 90%
> > quality using the AVIcodec tool. It's a good guage if nothing else.
> > WMV , after completing update to XP-SP2 is , out of the blue, only reading
> > 70--75 % max. It looks horrible.
> > The terminology I used, Compress/decompress is, I'm sure incorrect. My
> > thinking is/was, WMV---200MB, opens up to, for example, 400+ MB when
> > encoded
> > to MPEG-2. Where as starting with DV AVI of say, 800 MB it compresses
> > down
> > to, for example,300MB. Hence, I began wondering if "expanding" a
> > captured
> > file was beneficial as opposed to shrinking, which is not beneficial. Yes,
> > I
> > realise WMV is compressed. Bottom line though, for me at least, the
> > results
> > were excellent. Even viewing on a 53" TV .
> > Trying to get back my 100% WMV. I suspect a codec parameter has defaulted
> > to "GOOD" quality instead of "High Quality". I cannot find the
> > window/program that would allow an adjustment of the Windows WMV9 , which
> > I
> > am sure was available to me for configuring parameters. It's gone.
> > Thanks,
> > Alan.
> >
> > "Graham Hughes" wrote:
> >

> >> Alan,
> >> I'm suprised you find compressing to wmv, then compressing to Mpeg
> >> actually
> >> gives a better result than capturing as dv-avi, which is a like for like
> >> capture, so no quality loss, no compression from the tape, then just
> >> compressing once to dvd.
> >> You cannot decompress the quality from WMV to dvd, it's compressing it,
> >> but
> >> using a different codec.
> >> What is this reading you mention? Can you run through the settings you
> >> choose when you capture.
> >>
> >> As for Cari's mention of the cap's lock key, we try to read tens of
> >> messages
> >> every day and give construcvtive advice, anything which makes this harder
> >> is
> >> a pain in the butt, and caps is not only hard to read, but in on-line
> >> forums/discussions is counted as shouting - ie rude. Of course the use of
> >> caps for items such as dv-avi is fine when needed.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Graham Hughes
> >> MVP Digital Media
> >> www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
> >> www.dvds2treasure.com
> >> www.simplydv.com
> >>
> >>
> >> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8A497F75-E4E2-4C5B-B102-82DB98CEDB18@microsoft.com...
> >> > Thanks for your "warm" welcome and advice.
> >> > I have concluded and had confirmed, that the final DVD image is
> >> > superior
> >> > when "capturing" in WMV and decompressing to MPEG-2 , as opposed to
> >> > compressing from DV-AVI (Caps ok ?) to MPEG-2.
> >> > Something within the codec has I suspect gone screwy.
> >> > Full maintainence is conducted weekly, which of course includes
> >> > DEFRAGMENTATION
> >> >
> >> > "Cari (MS-MVP)" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Your Caps Lock key seems to be stuck, which could be a problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Capturing in DV-AVI will give the best resolution. So will defragging
> >> >> the
> >> >> hard drive before capturing.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cari (MS-MVP)
> >> >> Printing & Imaging
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:CCEB1C66-CB95-4805-9985-EDEB2E74BBF0@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > CAPTURING FROM CAMCORDER TO WMV WAS GIVING A 100% QUALITY READING
> >> >> > USING
> >> >> > THE
> >> >> > AVI CODEC TOOL. NOW, I'M ONLY GETTING A QUALITY READING OF 70%,
> >> >> > WHICH
> >> >> > IS
> >> >> > VISIBLY INFERIOR. LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE
> >> >> > CAUSED
> >> >> > THIS.
> >> >> > XP HAS UPDATED TO SP2 - COULD THIS BE THE PROBLEM?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

>
>
>

--
Graham Hughes
MVP Digital Media
www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
www.dvds2treasure.com
www.simplydv.com


"ALAN" <ALAN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BDAED63-CFD6-46B2-B410-2493935B0907@microsoft.com...

> Thanks Graham.

> Restored system (non destructive) to a few weeks back , reinstalled my
> codec
> pack and my 100% WMV is back.
> Alan

And this is what counts, jolly good, happy editing.

Graham,

I've been experimenting with Movie Maker capture and found out that even
DV-AVI raw captured file does not produce image quality on a TV (my laptop is
connected to a TV set via video cable) similar to that, which i achieved by
playing the tape straight from the camcorder. What makes you say that there
is "no quality loss"?

GV

"Graham Hughes" wrote:

> Alan,
> I'm suprised you find compressing to wmv, then compressing to Mpeg actually
> gives a better result than capturing as dv-avi, which is a like for like
> capture, so no quality loss, no compression from the tape, then just
> compressing once to dvd.

RAW is different to a dv-avi file, which is it you are capturing to?
When the movie is recorded to the minidv tape it is written using a dv
compression.
When transferred to the pc this is written as a dv-avi file (a mov to Macs),
but is an exact copy of the information on the tape.

Items which may affect the quality as shown on the tv.
The app you are using to send it to the tv, it may be sending a progressive
not interlaced signal out.
The way the laptop is connected to the tv. S-video when the tv is not
s-video compliant
Whether anything was done to the file, but here we should assume you are
watching the clip you have just captured.

Way to test if the quality remains the same.
Send the captured clip straight back out to the camcorder and play it on the
tv. It should be exactly the same as the original tape.

dv is compressed at a 5.1 ratio, this does not alter when it gets to the pc,
it is like for like.
If you saved a dv-avi file 10 times it should still be exactly the same.
When you start to add transitions you will get an extremely small amount fo
degradation on the area of video that the transition is on, but so small our
eyes could not tell. If you added several effects, and changed the
transition after each save the quality might get to a point where you could
detect it has gone down.

Hope this helps.

Graham

--
Graham Hughes
MVP Digital Media
www.myvideoproblems.co.uk
www.dvds2treasure.com
www.simplydv.com


"GV" <GV@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C873CC01-C8B1-4083-B2E6-630A2305AE33@microsoft.com...

> Graham,
>
> I've been experimenting with Movie Maker capture and found out that even
> DV-AVI raw captured file does not produce image quality on a TV (my laptop
> is
> connected to a TV set via video cable) similar to that, which i achieved
> by
> playing the tape straight from the camcorder. What makes you say that
> there
> is "no quality loss"?
>
> GV