Simple Blu-Ray Authoring tool that works

[thghgv]

Simple (NOT multiavchd / BDedit) tool, freeware or no doesn't matter, that works and fulfills the requirements below;

1. makes BD menus without java that W-O-R-K. The freeware tools above basically suck for this. Tried multiavchd and the resultant menu
system was twitchy and obtuse to navigate. And this was just a simple title menu. BDedit I have never been able to make work with any
kind of certainty. I need a proper tool(s) recommendation that is shareware or payware that works and has some semblance of support
and a proven track record behind it that doesn't cost as much as a small car.

2. The menu system created MUST play over a wide variety of systems from hardware media players to basic software players.

3. will allow import of video assets in M2TS format and will render the build of the final project WITHOUT RE-ENCODING those files.

4. Works with DTS-HD and Dolby HD audio.

I need recommendations of softwares that will do the above asap.

thanks in advance

[manolito]

Have you tried TMPGEnc Authoring works? I don't know if it fulfills all your requirements, but you can check out the trial version. Here are the specs:
http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/taw4_spec.html


Cheers
manolito

[MrVideo]

Have you tried TMPGEnc Authoring works?

I see that they are perpetuating incorrect technical information. When it comes to digital video, there is no such thing as NTSC or PAL. NTSC/PAL are ANALOG specifications for composite video.

Once NTSC/PAL analog video is digitized, it is no longer NTSC/PAL, it is 480i or 576i. There are no vertical and horizontal sync pulses. There are no color bursts and there is no analog active video line. It is digital.

They even placed the HD resolutions into NTSC/PAL slots. :eek:

[kabanero]

Also TMPGEnc Authoring works doesn't support h.264/AVC output and re-encodes everything to MPEG2. Sucks!

[MrVideo]

Also TMPGEnc Authoring works doesn't support h.264/AVC output and re-encodes everything to MPEG2. Sucks!

Ya, I noticed that as well. If you are going to support Blu-ray authoring, you need to actually support all of the video formats.

[lutinor]

Simple (NOT multiavchd / BDedit) tool, freeware or no doesn't matter, that works and fulfills the requirements below;

1. makes BD menus without java that W-O-R-K. The freeware tools above basically suck for this. Tried multiavchd and the resultant menu
system was twitchy and obtuse to navigate. And this was just a simple title menu. BDedit I have never been able to make work with any
kind of certainty. I need a proper tool(s) recommendation that is shareware or payware that works and has some semblance of support
and a proven track record behind it that doesn't cost as much as a small car.

2. The menu system created MUST play over a wide variety of systems from hardware media players to basic software players.

3. will allow import of video assets in M2TS format and will render the build of the final project WITHOUT RE-ENCODING those files.

4. Works with DTS-HD and Dolby HD audio.

I need recommendations of softwares that will do the above asap.

thanks in advance
Tbh i failled to find that...without succes and i was forced to learn pro tool. In the other hand when you can deal with this kind of tool you do what you want and it's compliant.

[thghgv]

Tbh i failled to find that...without succes and i was forced to learn pro tool. In the other hand when you can deal with this kind of tool you do what you want and it's compliant.

greeting lutinor

I have tried Encore CS5 but it will re-encode all assets upon building the final. Which tool are you using and will it allow for not re-encoding already encoded assets?

tia

[rik1138]

The only pro tools out there are Sonic Scenarist and Sony Blu-print.

[lutinor]

greeting lutinor

I have tried Encore CS5 but it will re-encode all assets upon building the final. Which tool are you using and will it allow for not re-encoding already encoded assets?

tia
Rik is right, the only compliant combo which will work about what you want is scenarist and x264.

Blueprint is way way to complicated and won't do better. If you need help with scenarist just pm me, it's not so hard but it requires some pratice to master it (i mean using it well to make your job cause mastering = no way for 'user' ^^)

[mp3dom]

Rik is right, the only compliant combo which will work about what you want is scenarist and x264.

x264? I think you mean BluPrint.


Blueprint is way way to complicated and won't do better.

It should be easier to use than Scenarist and require less programs (for example Scenarist needs Designer plugin, something that BluPrint doesn't need). Also BluPrint is built with abstraction layer that helps during programming.
The fact that a lot of medium/small studios use Scenarist is because it's more accessible than BluPrint (you can get Scenarist for half of the price of BluPrint)
Another pro-authoring tools that is even more accessible (and somewhat easier than Scenarist too) is DoStudio.

[lutinor]

x264? I think you mean BluPrint.


It should be easier to use than Scenarist and require less programs (for example Scenarist needs Designer plugin, something that BluPrint doesn't need). Also BluPrint is built with abstraction layer that helps during programming.
The fact that a lot of medium/small studios use Scenarist is because it's more accessible than BluPrint (you can get Scenarist for half of the price of BluPrint)
Another pro-authoring tools that is even more accessible (and somewhat easier than Scenarist too) is DoStudio.

x264 about encoding and the authoring part with Scenarist. You are right about Dostudio, it's a good tool and very 'nice' price for a pro tool :

http://www.netblender.com/main/buy/pricing-information

Btw, Dostudio is ten time more easier than bluprint/scenarist

[mp3dom]

x264 about encoding and the authoring part with Scenarist.
x264 is not the only encoder that supports BD so it's not the "only compliant combo which will work about what you want" :)

[lutinor]

x264 is not the only encoder that supports BD so it's not the "only compliant combo which will work about what you want" :)

Agree but it's free and very efficient imo.

[rik1138]

x264? I think you mean BluPrint.


It should be easier to use than Scenarist and require less programs (for example Scenarist needs Designer plugin, something that BluPrint doesn't need). Also BluPrint is built with abstraction layer that helps during programming.
The fact that a lot of medium/small studios use Scenarist is because it's more accessible than BluPrint (you can get Scenarist for half of the price of BluPrint)
Another pro-authoring tools that is even more accessible (and somewhat easier than Scenarist too) is DoStudio.

Actually, the abstraction layer is what is kind of turn off to some people... It's made by Sony, so I'm sure it does it's job well, but anyone with authoring experience (DVD, that is, using Scenarist) is going to be MUCH more comfortable with Scenarist BD. Blu-print is more for people that don't want to get into the programming side of it, but just want to make a disc, or people that have other experience (like Java programmers or something). So, it has it's pros in that dept. Much like Spruce did with DVD...

DoStudio is not a Professional tool, it's what is called a 'Pro-sumer' tool. Probably the best tool available for use with mid-to-low end clients/projects, and it does seem to work rather well for that. The major studios don't seem to want to touch it though. I know it's recently implemented HDMV programming (it's primarily a WYSIWYG Java tool), but I have no idea how well it does it. They had to do that when 3D came out for PS3 support... But, if studio work isn't what you are after (which is very hard to obtain anyway), it's probably a good alternative. I believe they do make the effort to verify that their disc images are spec compliant.

Agree but it's free and very efficient imo.

Never use a 'free' tool for any real Blu-ray work. If you are doing work for clients that intend to replicate the discs and sell/distribute them, using a tool that's not specifically designed to follow the blu-ray spec (written by people that _have_ the spec, understand it fully and verify the output with Sony and Blu-ray manufacturers) is a VERY bad idea... If you are doing client work for blu-ray as part of your business, you need to be using Cinevision, Cinemacraft, Blu-code or some other professional-level video encoder...

It might be working fine as far as you can tell, but if something happens, and they determine that the video stream is not 100% blu-ray compliant, and then they ask you what you used to encode it, do you really want to tell them it was some free tool you downloaded off the internet? That, in most people's minds, is a tool made primarily to make internet piracy easier? (Not saying that was the real intent of the developers, but that's what it is associated with since it's one of the most popular tools used by pirates to re-encode video to make internet distribution easier...)

[mp3dom]

DoStudio is not a Professional tool, it's what is called a 'Pro-sumer' tool.
Uhmm, maybe some time ago. Actually the full-featured version cover pretty much the features available in a BD and above all, allows CMF outputting to replicate the disc (they advertise it at least spec compliant). The HDMV side is covered by IGEditor by DVDLogic for the IG parts: not the best way, but at least it works.

The major studios don't seem to want to touch it though.

Surely there's some big resistance to use it for a 500K+ copies projects (like major studios do) but it can be very useful and quicker to author for replicate less than 3000/4000 copies (small projects).


I believe they do make the effort to verify that their disc images are spec compliant.

So it seems...


If you are doing client work for blu-ray as part of your business, you need to be using Cinevision, Cinemacraft, Blu-code or some other professional-level video encoder...

Preferably the last two :)
Due to MVC and 3D hype, the price of the AVC editions of all the various encoders are actually falling down.
Also, I'm not 100% sure that x264 can be used for commercial blurays (I mean, bluray that you press and sell).

[kieranrk]

Never use a 'free' tool for any real Blu-ray work. If you are doing work for clients that intend to replicate the discs and sell/distribute them, using a tool that's not specifically designed to follow the blu-ray spec (written by people that _have_ the spec, understand it fully and verify the output with Sony and Blu-ray manufacturers) is a VERY bad idea... If you are doing client work for blu-ray as part of your business, you need to be using Cinevision, Cinemacraft, Blu-code or some other professional-level video encoder...

It might be working fine as far as you can tell, but if something happens, and they determine that the video stream is not 100% blu-ray compliant, and then they ask you what you used to encode it, do you really want to tell them it was some free tool you downloaded off the internet? That, in most people's minds, is a tool made primarily to make internet piracy easier? (Not saying that was the real intent of the developers, but that's what it is associated with since it's one of the most popular tools used by pirates to re-encode video to make internet distribution easier...)


Preferably the last two :)
Due to MVC and 3D hype, the price of the AVC editions of all the various encoders are actually falling down.
Also, I'm not 100% sure that x264 can be used for commercial blurays (I mean, bluray that you press and sell).

Stop talking rubbish. x264 is a perfectly legitimate encoder to use - Warner and Paramount have used it for discs, what more do you want?

[Roger1972]

DVDLogic EasyBD is simple semi-professional BD authoring solution for home and studio using. It contains all necessary functions for compilation separate video, audio, interactive graphics (menu) and subtitles into one full valuable BD. EasyBD has very simple but flexible user interface and allows create BD in short term. The main concept of the solution is that you can easily create your simple Blu-ray without any special knowledge. From the other hand you can find many interesting features using EasyBD if you are BD professional and familiar with BD specification.

EasyBD intended for wide range of users and allows to use wide number of BD possibilities according to BD specification. You can start your first project from single video stream and continue improving it adding audio, subtitles, interactive menu, navigation commands, titles, chapters and many more ... In couple with IGEditor EasyBD allows to add very complex interactive menu with large number of buttons and commands.

We simplified basic concepts of BD specification but leave all included in more understandable for any user form.

[mp3dom]

Stop talking rubbish. x264 is a perfectly legitimate encoder to use - Warner and Paramount have used it for discs, what more do you want?

I'm speaking about licensing to mpeg-la. Which needs to pay the fee to mpeg-la for an authoring house that uses plain x264 (CLI from x264.nl) to sell commercial bluray titles?

[kieranrk]

I'm speaking about licensing to mpeg-la. Which needs to pay the fee to mpeg-la for an authoring house that uses plain x264 (CLI from x264.nl) to sell commercial bluray titles?

These fees are not related to the H.264/AVC encoder that is used. They apply to discs encoded with any encoder.

[mp3dom]

Uhmm, I'm not sure about it. Actually all major companies who sells AVC encoders for bluray appears in the mpeg-la list. There should be a reason... As an authoring house we also pay fees to BDA to create BD and use BD logo and also our customers who physically sell the BD pays the AACS to the replication facility.
In this 'chain' someone should pay the mpeg-la. With commercial encoders, the mpeg-la license is already paid (also Pegasys Inc. figures in the mpeg-la list).

[kieranrk]

Uhmm, I'm not sure about it. Actually all major companies who sells AVC encoders for bluray appears in the mpeg-la list. There should be a reason... As an authoring house we also pay fees to BDA to create BD and use BD logo and also our customers who physically sell the BD pays the AACS to the replication facility.
In this 'chain' someone should pay the mpeg-la. With commercial encoders, the mpeg-la license is already paid (also Pegasys Inc. figures in the mpeg-la list).

That list is for the licensing of encoders which are sold by manufacturers. x264.exe is shipped from a country without software patents and so can be used. (also it would count under the less than 100k downloads thing so no fee would be payable)

There is a separate mpeg-la fee for shipping discs which is unrelated to the encoder fee.

[rik1138]

Stop talking rubbish. x264 is a perfectly legitimate encoder to use - Warner and Paramount have used it for discs, what more do you want?

Have they (Warner specifically) used it on a released title? Their authoring facility is notoriously anal about using experimental software (i.e., software they've never used before) on an actual title... If they've actually used x264 on something that they were comfortable enough to release, then that definitely says some good stuff about x264. :cool: I don't know the history of the encoder, or what methods have been used to verify the encoded files, but usually with free software it's just 'does it play in a player'... That's why they general rule of thumb is to avoid that kind of software for real studio work.

That would have to be a fairly recent development though. Last time I heard (about a year ago I guess), they were strictly using commercial professional encoders/authoring software for released work.

The studios don't _need_ free software, they already have all the professional gear for doing this work. But they are sometimes willing to experiment... So it's not unheard of.

Also, does x264 _always_ output blu-ray compliant video, or can you give it settings that violate the spec? That would be another reason studios wouldn't be comfortable with it being used unless they know in advance that the person operating the software really knows what they are doing...

[rik1138]

That list is for the licensing of encoders which are sold by manufacturers. x264.exe is shipped from a country without software patents and so can be used. (also it would count under the less than 100k downloads thing so no fee would be payable)

It can be used _in that country_, but I've been told it's illegal to use it in the US (where the format _is_ patented). There's a couple of facilities that have actually paid licensing fees to mpeg-la in order to be allowed to use x264 for their needs (not blu-ray encoding).

Just because it's okay to 'violate' the patent in the country where the software is made, doesn't make it legal to use it in the country where the patent is valid.

From what I've been told, only licensed encoders can be used to commercial discs, and I don't believe anyone has licensed x264 for that purpose... Another reason to be very careful about using it for clients that intend to replicate... If you aren't sure (and I am, by no means, an authority on this), have a lawyer look into... Don't take advice from an internet forum or website that could land you in legal trouble...

(disclaimer- I'm not a patent lawyer, just relaying information given to me by someone that _should_ know what they are talking about... :rolleyes: )

[Ghitulescu]

It can be used _in that country_, but I've been told it's illegal to use it in the US (where the format _is_ patented). There's a couple of facilities that have actually paid licensing fees to mpeg-la in order to be allowed to use x264 for their needs (not blu-ray encoding).

Just because it's okay to 'violate' the patent in the country where the software is made, doesn't make it legal to use it in the country where the patent is valid.

From what I've been told, only licensed encoders can be used to commercial discs, and I don't believe anyone has licensed x264 for that purpose... Another reason to be very careful about using it for clients that intend to replicate... If you aren't sure (and I am, by no means, an authority on this), have a lawyer look into... Don't take advice from an internet forum or website that could land you in legal trouble...

(disclaimer- I'm not a patent lawyer, just relaying information given to me by someone that _should_ know what they are talking about... :rolleyes: )

Patenting excludes the commercial use, not the private one.
Distributing, even free, however, falls under the patent act, since it deprives the patent proprietor from a source of income (the lost market share).

[kieranrk]

Have they (Warner specifically) used it on a released title?

Yes. It would be wrong for me to comment further about their use other than what's here: http://www.x264bluray.com/x264-encoded-releases


From what I've been told, only licensed encoders can be used to commercial discs, and I don't believe anyone has licensed x264 for that purpose... Another reason to be very careful about using it for clients that intend to replicate... If you aren't sure (and I am, by no means, an authority on this), have a lawyer look into... Don't take advice from an internet forum or website that could land you in legal trouble...


If you're crazy paranoid you can build it from source. Source code is not patentable.

It can be used _in that country_, but I've been told it's illegal to use it in the US (where the format _is_ patented). There's a couple of facilities that have actually paid licensing fees to mpeg-la in order to be allowed to use x264 for their needs (not blu-ray encoding).


This is totally meaningless. There are fees for shipping encoders, which start when you ship more than 100k encoders. A facility would not use more than 100k encoders. There are fees for shipping media which are independent of encoder.

[rik1138]

If you're crazy paranoid you can build it from source. Source code is not patentable.
No need to, there's perfectly acceptable encoders already on the market...

This is totally meaningless. There are fees for shipping encoders, which start when you ship more than 100k encoders. A facility would not use more than 100k encoders. There are fees for shipping media which are independent of encoder.

Like I said, I know nothing about the details of using an encoder, I'm just relaying information. That's what I was told was the reason why two different studios would not use unlicensed encoders: It's illegal to use them on Blu-ray discs meant for sale in the US. There are fees for using the blu-ray codecs for commercial sale, that's part of the licensing... If their information is wrong, take it up with them. I'm just relaying information...

[MrVideo]

A fee for this, a fee for that. All these Blu-ray licensing fees are hurting Blu-ray. The A-holes that control these fees need to get the sh!t together so that the costs for producing Blu-rays is no higher than producing DVDs.

I suspect that the damn fees are what is keeping studios, like ABC Studios, from releasing their TV shows on Blu-ray. If you look at the upcoming releases, the majority of stuff from ABC Studios is DVD only. It sucks.

[mp3dom]

For what I know, x264 is currently unlicensed to mpeg-la. This means that if an authoring house wants to use x264 to made commercial blurays, it needs to sign the mpeg-la licensing (actually I'm not taking into account the 100K units, and I'm not also sure that for commercial blurays the same policy applies, probably there are some different/special fees under the BD licensing). But even if there are no fees due to low volume units, the authoring house needs to sign the agreement with mpeg-la because the H.264 standard is patented. Warner and Paramount (Australia) probably (or surely) have licensed their use of x264 under the mpeg-la exactly as Google (YouTube) and Facebook that figures in the mpeg-la and are using x264. If the authoring house produce BDs with unlicensed x264 then have the risk to be sued.

[kieranrk]

For what I know, x264 is currently unlicensed to mpeg-la. This means that if an authoring house wants to use x264 to made commercial blurays, it needs to sign the mpeg-la licensing (actually I'm not taking into account the 100K units, and I'm not also sure that for commercial blurays the same policy applies, probably there are some different/special fees under the BD licensing). But even if there are no fees due to low volume units, the authoring house needs to sign the agreement with mpeg-la because the H.264 standard is patented. Warner and Paramount (Australia) probably (or surely) have licensed their use of x264 under the mpeg-la exactly as Google (YouTube) and Facebook that figures in the mpeg-la and are using x264. If the authoring house produce BDs with unlicensed x264 then have the risk to be sued.

All authoring houses would have to sign an mpeg-la agreement independent of encoder because they are distributing H.264 encoded content. The encoder is irrelevant.

[rik1138]

All authoring houses would have to sign an mpeg-la agreement independent of encoder because they are distributing H.264 encoded content. The encoder is irrelevant.

I don't believe that's true, I think the mpeg-la license is part of the software package when you purchase an encoder that's licensed by mpeg-la. It's the non-licensed encoders that require a separate agreement with mpeg-la.

Sonic, for example, takes care of the mpeg-la licensing for any facility that uses Cinevision. They may be simply doing the paperwork for you based on your agreement to purchase the software... Not sure how it looks behind the scenes.

Even if you are correct, that still means that anyone that downloads x264 and intends to use it for commercial purposes (depending on unit quantity, etc) _still_ needs to at least sign an agreement with mpeg-la. You can't just download it and use it contract/agreement free, that is still illegal.

[mp3dom]

All authoring houses would have to sign an mpeg-la agreement independent of encoder because they are distributing H.264 encoded content. The encoder is irrelevant.

Are you sure about this? Commercial encoders already cover the mpeg-la part and the license allows you to output AVC streams for commercial purposes (mainly BDs, in this case). Looking at the mpeg-la licensees there are mainly broadcast networks that (probably) broadcast AVC stream via cable/DTV or web, companies that license AVC for cameras, companies that makes encoders/decoders for commercial or personal purposes (Sony, CTC, MainConcept, Grass Valley, CoreCodec, Microsoft, Apple, Thomson) and majors (that probably are using AVC not only for BDs but also for VOD or streaming), but there are no authoring houses or distributors (to my knowledge). For example a name like 'Criterion' or 'Nightjar' (both based in U.S. and very famous) are missing.

To be on the safe side, I would ask to mpeg-la prior of using x264 for commercial bds.

[kieranrk]

Are you sure about this? Commercial encoders already cover the mpeg-la part and the license allows you to output AVC streams for commercial purposes (mainly BDs, in this case).

Incorrect. Distributing discs is as a per unit fee. It's worth saying that the list isn't necessarily everyone who is licensed.

For example Quicktime - http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/quicktime7.pdf

"commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies"

[shon3i]

Also, does x264 _always_ output blu-ray compliant video, or can you give it settings that violate the spec? That would be another reason studios wouldn't be comfortable with it being used unless they know in advance that the person operating the software really knows what they are doing... That is ridiculous, you want to encode but you don't know advanced settings. Person that not familiar with this area should not touch this. That why we have very bad commercial releases recently.

x264 have special switch that will reduce all to make blu-ray complaint, and commandline is very simple.

[rik1138]

That is ridiculous, you want to encode but you don't know advanced settings. Person that not familiar with this area should not touch this. That why we have very bad commercial releases recently.

Welcome to Hollywood... Only _ONE_ thing matters to the studios: Making money. If they have a choice of paying someone $100,000/yr that has the skill to re-write the encoder if necessary, vs $40,000/yr for someone that has read the manual and can adjust the basic settings (but still get video out of the encoder), who do think they will choose?

Most major facilities have at least one person at that higher level, everyone else is just button pushers... Automation is there is industry is headed, there will be less and less people that really know ins and outs of the process, they just know to 'click here to get this output' 'click here for this other output', etc...

That's why studios prefer software that _can't_ make non-spec compliant streams (or if they can, it's very difficult to find those settings...).

x264 is nice because if you know how to operate it, that one tool can probably do every possible type of stream (blu-ray, streaming, whatever). But you have to have a little bit of skill and knowledge...

You actually mentioned 'command line'. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people in facilities these days don't even know what that is, and wouldn't have a clue what to do in it... :rolleyes:

[kieranrk]

If they have a choice of paying someone $100,000/yr that has the skill to re-write the encoder if necessary,


In no way do you need to rewrite the encoder to get a valid Blu-Ray stream.

[rik1138]

In no way do you need to rewrite the encoder to get a valid Blu-Ray stream.

I know that, it was just an example... You know, kind of like sarcasm? I know some of the best video compressionists in the industry, and none of them could actually rewrite an encoder as far as I know (not that they'd need to try, as I mentioned above there are perfectly good commercial ones available)... It was a reference used to indicate 'Very skilled'.

My point was that if a studio has the option of hiring someone with years of experience, that knows the format inside and out, and could get exceptional video quality out of _ANY_ encoder, his salary is going to be in the 6-figure range.

Then there's the button pushers that can follow examples in the manual that come in MUCH cheaper...

Who do you think they are going to hire?

You don't need to know _anything_ get a blu-ray compliant video stream. I could pick a homeless guy off the street that's never touched a computer and show him what button to press to get a compliant stream... That doesn't mean I want him encoding the video for blu-ray discs that I want to buy. There much, MUCH more to encoding video than just getting a compliant stream out of the encoder...

That whole post I made above was about the skill level of the operators in general, nothing to do with any piece of software itself...

[Ghitulescu]

There's a general trend to hide the implementation details from users, at all levels.

[kieranrk]

There much, MUCH more to encoding video than just getting a compliant stream out of the encoder...


Then you can't have it both ways. Getting a better stream out of
an encoder inevitably involves changing settings. If the ability to change settings is not there then that can't be done.

[rik1138]

There's a general trend to hide the implementation details from users, at all levels.

Yep, that's part of the problem in some people's eyes... The studios just want full automation that's 'good enough'. Encode it once, and that's what we are using...

There was a time when a compressionist my spend an hour or two just trying to make one scene look as good as possible (in some cases because it really needed it, in others just pride- 'I'm doing it, I'm going to make it look damn good!'), now it's considered a waste of time... Only one or two percent of the purchasers will complain, so it's not worth it to the studios to make it look as good as possible... Good enough is fine. There's titles out there that I really want, but I won't spend money on them because I know what was 'approved as-is' on them... And it's usually one of those things that I'd never have noticed on my own, but now that I know about them, I see them every time. And the could have been fixed, fairly easily (and at no extra cost either), they just didn't want to bother.

Although, there's still usually a way to get behind the scenes if you really want to...

Then you can't have it both ways. Getting a better stream out of
an encoder inevitably involves changing settings. If the ability to change settings is not there then that can't be done.

There isn't just one setting that outputs a compliant stream... Have you ever used a professional Blu-ray encoder? There's _hundreds_ of things you can change to adjust the picture quality to get the output looking as good as possible (not to mention all the plugins and filters you can also add if you want to). These encoders aren't just 'click blu-ray, set bitrate' and go. There's much, MUCH more to them (as I said), but they will always output a spec-compliant stream regardless of these settings.

I have to admit, I really don't understand what the point is you are trying to make... I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying about the quality of _PEOPLE_ that are being hired to do this work, and combining that with a comment I made about the encoding software itself... There's two different conversations going on here. :cool:

[mp3dom]

Incorrect. Distributing discs is as a per unit fee. It's worth saying that the list isn't necessarily everyone who is licensed.
For example Quicktime

For commercial encoders I mean 'for bd encoder'. Infact in my previous post I said: "companies that makes encoders/decoders for commercial or personal purposes".
QuickTime is in the latter case and the license doesn't allows to use it for commercial purpose and require an additional license (the same apply to Microsoft... Win7 carry an H264 encoder/decoder that can be used only for personal use). Pro encoders are licensed for commercial purpose.

Then you can't have it both ways. Getting a better stream out of
an encoder inevitably involves changing settings. If the ability to change settings is not there then that can't be done.

"Professional" world works exactly like here. How many people tries to change x264 parameters without knowing what's happening? And how many times someone suggest here to simply use the presets? The same apply to professional world. There are some skilled people who really knows what they're changing into an encoder, and others that simply doesn't know and want only to press a single button to have a final stream. Some pro encoders allows to change almost every aspect of AVC (while mantaining 100% BD compatibility), others mask some special options that would most of the times lowering quality if not used properly. Most of the BD pro encoders nowadays are pre-tuned to output not the best possible quality, but a really good stream without customization (giving enough bitrate for that, there's no need to use an 8 Mbps avg bitrate on a movie and put it onto a 50Gb BD). Like always, there are anyway some exceptions.

[kieranrk]

Pro encoders are licensed for commercial purpose.

Such a licence doesn't exist because the fees are per disc.

[7@mp3dotcom]

I concur regarding DoStudio.
It reminds me of the the old days when Dreamweaver arrived and made it easier to do correctly coded HTML.
I downloaded the DoStudio trial and will actually finish my first title this week. (Menu's, subs, conditions, etc.) I plan to self publish the disk and hopefully make enough in a few months to purchase the license.
Just in case, plan B is already underway - learning Java.