NeroDigital vfw version

[ookzDVD]

I've heard some people already tried it.

Is that available for public download ?

Thank you.

[Doom9]

heard? From the grapevine? Sounds like a lot of rumor talking.
I have it but Ahead doesn't have any intention of releasing it to the public and if you search in the forum you'll find a couple statements that say the exact same thing.

[RyFish]

Why is this - just to keep us locked into Recode and NeroVision (whenever that will support ND) ?

[Doom9]

just to keep us locked into Recode and NeroVision (whenever that will support ND) ?Sure looks like it. They "sell" NeroDigital as a complete solution, not a video codec with extras and they are really particular about this solution thing, much more than any other company in the same market.

[RyFish]

Shame, as it's the only mpeg4 codec that's quick enough to compress a live stream in real-time on my PC (1.4ghz Athlon)

[chilledoutuk]

hmm i would ahve thought with vhq and other features turned off and using h.263 xvid should be fast enough.
Also turbo would give you a boost in fps when using bframes.

Nerodigital is not a good codec its recode thats good just wish someone would hack xvid into it.

[RyFish]

I gave that a try but it's still not quick enough. Nero IS a good codec if you want speed. Okay, it might not quite be able to compete with Xvid in the quality stakes but for those of us without the latest hardware it'll more than do! :D

[damrod]

it's quick so to make video capture from a tv card it's good

you choose a high bitrate (around 1500 for exemple) and your capture will be good... it's only a matter of speed to avoid frame dropping...

[ookzDVD]

Ok,

Let's forget NeroDigital, it's just a looser!

Xvid is our winner!

[damrod]

yes xvid is better

but i want a codec quick as possible for video capture

if nerodigital is good and quick.... i will use it

i reencode after the video

it's juste for the source... oh i don't care about lossless codec... i don't have 50 Go to loose for video capture

at this time i use mpeg2 because i don't loose frame in the capture

xvid /divx .... i lose frames so...

[Audionut]

Originally posted by damrod
yes xvid is better

but i want a codec quick as possible for video capture

if nerodigital is good and quick.... i will use it

i reencode after the video

it's juste for the source... oh i don't care about lossless codec... i don't have 50 Go to loose for video capture

at this time i use mpeg2 because i don't loose frame in the capture

xvid /divx .... i lose frames so...

In Xvid, set "single pass" and "target quant" to "2" or better, disable "quater pixel", "GMC" "chroma optimizer" and "chroma motion".
Set VHQ mode to "0".
And perhaps set "motion search precision" to "5".
You could Also capture at a slightly lower resolution.

Nero is fast, sure. But I can't get nice looking frames with it.

[damrod]

i encode in mpeg2 640*480 6Mbit/s 25fps

it works good : no drop, good colors...

[Teegedeck]

...6Mbit/s...

[damrod]

1Go for an anime of 25 minutes

i think it's good (sound in mp2 224kbits)

it's better than avi with hyyufuv or lossless codec!!

if i want good quality and speed in mpeg4 i must use 1500kbits as bitrate for video..

btw it's only to be reencode further in rv9 or
in xvid via filters...

and the best part is that mpeg2 keep good colors (it's not like in mpeg1 ;-)))

[Neo Neko]

If your card can do YV12 color space without software conversion a 1.4Ghz AMD machine should be more than adequate to do 720x480@30fps in Xvid. My Hauppage using the BTWincap drivers and Virtualvcr was easily able to do this. And this was with Xvid on slowest ME, no VHQ, no Qpel, GMC, and Bframes. It's ok for PVR use. But I always go Huffyuv or Mjpeg for archival capture. That way I can deinterlace and filter without loosing more quality. Even capturing in MPEG2 first is not so hot.