Some questions about real video 9

[Razorblade2000]

1. Do I need to crop or can I also use the black level filter? (would be better for subtitles).

2. Voice or Music Audio-CODEC for DVDs???

3. Surround? Can I really make sourround audio from wave files? (do wave files have more than 2 channels??)

[atracus]

Originally posted by Razorblade2000

2. Voice or Music Audio-CODEC for DVDs???

3. Surround? Can I really make sourround audio from wave files? (do wave files have more than 2 channels??)

2. Music. Definitely. Try it on any 10-minutes sample, voice is optimized at low bitrates, and in movies you very often have parts with (background) music.

3. I understood that when you downsample an .ac3 i.e. with BeSweet, you may have a wave file with DS 4+0. Take that Wave and encode it with a Surround RealNetworks codec, and the job is done. But- I'd be helped is fomeone less "heuristic" than me could confirm this to us.

take care

[atx]

[Baghira]

I have another question about RealVideo 9 encoding options that (hopefully) fits into this thread.

After reading other posts about this codec it seems to me as if the majority of you choses the "Sharp" video mode for encoding.

I thought the "Normal" mode would lead to a less blocky picture especially at lower bitrates (for example 700 kbit at a resolution of 576 x 240).

What's your optinion about that? And do you always "denoise"?

[atracus]

Originally posted by Baghira
I have another question about RealVideo 9 encoding options that (hopefully) fits into this thread.

After reading other posts about this codec it seems to me as if the majority of you choses the "Sharp" video mode for encoding.

I thought the "Normal" mode would lead to a less blocky picture especially at lower bitrates (for example 700 kbit at a resolution of 576 x 240).

What's your optinion about that? And do you always "denoise"?

I agree with you Baghira - as a rule of thumb, sharp is the best choice for bitrates >700k and/or slow movies (comedies?), normal is good for <700 and/or fast movies (action?); this, because to my eye (=subjective!) sharp gives results more resembling the original DVD's, and I can accept a little blockiness as a price to pay for that.

Whatever, if you're in doubt you may just compromise (hehe): just use AVISynth with 0.75 (sharp) Bicubic Resize to feed a "normal" rv9 encoding, or altrenatively a 0.50 (neutral) resize to feed "sharp" rv9.... as always, you'd have to experiment with small clips from each movie (maybe with the .avs coming out of GKnot's Compressibility Test?) and judge yourself.

DENOISE: no, I never denoised a DVD, I just tried it once on a video cap from TV... I can't comment on that (not enough expreiences).

[atx]

[Razorblade2000]

does it make any difference in performance/quality if I use Helix or Plus beta or preview (Always producer.exe, not the gui by real)?

[Baghira]

@atracus

Thanks for your help!

@razor:p

In another thread called "Helix Producer out for RV9" tanksimpson told me that Helix Producer IS the official new version of Real Producer Preview, so you should use it, because it is much less buggy than the Preview version. But as far as I know, there are no differences in performance or quality.

[31 Flavas]

As for final output quality, Helix is way better than preview producer. I have not compaired either to the warzed Real 9 Producer, didn't use it much. But it probably is better than preview.

I've heard though that Helix's producer.exe is not compatable with AutoRV9 though. It's easy enough to edit Helix's .rpad's with notepad though.

[Razorblade2000]

It is compatible, but just as the beta version (chinese guy) it won't close after finishing an encoding job (so autorv9 won't continue joinig files and so on...)

[Dark-Cracker]

hi,

the helix version is not compatible with autorv9 because like say razorblade2000 it won't close after the encoding job. but u can copy the directory codec from helix to the preview directory and u can use autorv9 with helix codec. i have make a light version of : the preview version+Helix codec + rmeditor around 1.6Mo i think i will add this to the next package in the v1.2 i don't understand why real developper have make a dos tool who don't close itself , and more they do't have add a line parameter to close it. very strange. but i have make some test with the preview and the helix version and there is no difference in the quality, and the final is around 0.3 % the seems.

bye.

[Razorblade2000]

I used helix... everything WORKED!!!!->Compatible!

[Dark-Cracker]

yes compatible but the helix's producer.exe doesn't close, it only the matter :)

[Razorblade2000]

Have a look:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30049