Recording to HD for Dubbing to DVD question

Discussion in 'Blu-ray & DVD Players & Recorders' started by kwebbotaurus, Jun 23, 2005.

  1. kwebbotaurus

    kwebbotaurus
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    918
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +41
    I'm about to get a Sony RDR-HX510, is it best to record at the highest possible quality and then reduce to fit to DVD, or record to the HD at the same rate as you intend to dub to DVD?
     
  2. redsox_mark

    redsox_mark
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,512
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Bath, England
    Ratings:
    +621
    Best to record on the HD at the same rate as you intend to dub to DVD, as this way it only needs to encode once, so better quality (though the difference may be hard to detect; you can get good results the other way too). Also, when creating your DVD you can use high speed dub.

    Mark
     
  3. musukebba

    musukebba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    689
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16
    Remember the highest possible quality of Freeview transmissions is approximately at SP (and in many cases at much lower bitrates), so you're never going to improve on that.
     
  4. phelings

    phelings
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,025
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    Musuk,this is the same crap that Loobster ocmes out with.Currently,recording from Freeview to HDD is NOT in the digital domain where your opinion would stand up.
    Whether Freeview broadcasts at SP or LP is irrelevant,recording on your DVDR at XP will still give you a better result than recording it in SP.
    Using your logic you would copy a VHS tape over to DVD at VHS quality which must be 4 or 6 hour mode.Obviously a recording at 6 hour level would look very poor to a VHS copy to DVD recorded at XP or SP.
    Granted you will not improve the poor pix from DTT or DSAT,but theres no need to unnecessarily make them worse than required
     
  5. musukebba

    musukebba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    689
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16
    Oh no - here we go again...

    The use of reductio ad absurdum does you no credit. Especially when you insinuate that a 6 hour recording of a 3 hour VHS would be worse than an HQ effort. DUH?? You also omit to include that the quality of the DAC is crucial in generating the material for the second encoding process to work on.

    There's a difference between resolving 'detail present' and 'representation of detail present'. Given the same machine and display, recording an analogue SP picture at HQ means you use twice as much resolution to show the same representation of detail in the original DVB-T transmission. If you don't understand that then there's no point in discussing further.

    On a pragmatic note: personally up until now I'm happy copying Thomson PVR recordings, which ARE direct DVB-T transport stream dumps to HDD, over to DVD via RGB at SP quality. That's a one real-time re-encoding of 'SP' to SP, and I have to look REALLY hard to see the difference on a 32" CRT. Funnily enough, recording at HQ means I have to look just as hard to see the same difference.
     
  6. phelings

    phelings
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,025
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you have to look that hard to see the difference between an HQ recording and an SP one then something needs a tune up-it could be your tv or your eyes.
    So you actually believe a VHS recording copied over in 6 hour mode(whether or not the tape is 3 hours is irrelevant)will be as good as one in HQ?
    I wonder if you were just trying to be clever and did not do it very well,or perhaps you really do think it true
     
  7. knotpc

    knotpc
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Peterborough
    Ratings:
    +18
    Correct me if I'm wrong but unless your copying the programme in data format as on a PC, the best quality setting on a DVD recorder will give you near equal quality as the signal recieved in video format , then converted to data, be 1mps or 10mps. If the signal for example is about 4mps if you record at 5mps you will not get anywhere as good recording than at 10mps. Not an exact science but somewhere near half quality. :beer:
     
  8. phelings

    phelings
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,025
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    At least someone can see the obvious truth.
    Only Musek has this problem
     
  9. musukebba

    musukebba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    689
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16
    The first part of your assertion is an oversimplification, but generally true for recording of analogue sources. You have to remember that Freeview is not analogue, and the received video signal is an already-encoded digital MPEG2 stream where a proportion of original detail has already been lost at source. It cannot be recovered and therefore anything else you do to the received transmission will only serve to degrade further the representation of the original detail. On the Sony, if there is a subsequent conversion to analogue before the MPEG2 encoder gets to work then you have another stage of degradation. Then of course you have the encoding stage which is what we are arguing about.

    You have to understand how MPEG2 encoders work to see why oversampling an SP source at HQ is a procedure of diminishing returns in this example. The MPEG2 encoding at transmission source will have already made the motion predictions appropriate to an SP level and reduced the information. Thus after receiving the signal and recording on a domestic DVD recorder there will probably be very little left for a consumer-level MPEG2 encoder to do, whether that is at the same approximate quality setting or a higher one such as HQ. Therefore you might as well use SP, since the additional benefit will be minimal at higher settings, and you get more on a disc with SP.

    As I said originally, you aren't going to get more than SP quality from Freeview because the original detail is not there any more.

     
  10. redsox_mark

    redsox_mark
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,512
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Bath, England
    Ratings:
    +621
    If you go back to the original question; the question was which is best:

    1) to record to HDD at the target rate for DVD, then do a high speed dub

    2) record to HDD at a high rate, then do a rate conversion dub to the target rate

    So for example, say it is a 2 hour movie. Best to record in SP, and dub this in high speed (only 1 encoding); i.e. option 1.

    If one was to use option 2, you might as well use a max rate for the HDD encoding - no point to encode at one low rate then dub to another low rate, assuming your HDD is large enough.

    In terms of the debate about what bit rate to use (which wasn't the original question): I can personally see the difference in quality on my recorder between recording Freeview at "XP" (max rate) and SP. I understand and accept that you can't improve on the quality of the original no matter what rate you use, and if the original is fairly low quality then the difference between recording at a lower vs. higher rate may be marginal. And yes Freeview is digital, but with today's recorders it is recording this as an analogue input. A recorder will more accuratly record the input at XP than SP. The difference may be "marginal", but it will be there.

    Now while I can tell the difference, I have no problem in going to SP, or even lower - as long as I stay above 4.0 (lower than that drops to half resolution on my XS32) - quality is still good. So if I have a 2 hour movie, I'd use SP and put it all on one disc. The improvement I'd get over splitting this into 2 discs is not significant enough for me to do that. But if it is a 1.5 hour movie, I'd still use the max rate to fill the disc; why not? And if it is a 3 hour movie, I'd split it over 2 discs.

    Mark
     
  11. knotpc

    knotpc
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Peterborough
    Ratings:
    +18
    I have not got freeview, but when I bought my Panny E30 3 years ago I made some tests recording from NTL digital cable,SKY digital and Direct DVD from my Pioneer DVD player to the Panny. I recorded 5 minutes at 1hr,2hr,4hr and 6hrs recordings from all of them.
    My results were-

    6hr was awful much worse in my opinion to my 2 Panny videos.

    4hr was OK if you just watch it as if it was just any TV but not good enough if you want quality, In fact I'll stick my neck out here and say not better than a good video recording.

    2hr was good enough on all recordings from these scources and would be more than acceptable for most people.

    1hr was not much different to 2hr for NTL and SKY but on recording DVD to DVD the difference was obvious to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

    Not Test bench stuff I know, but it left me no doubt where I stood with recording speed.

    Since I got the TOSH32 I do the same as Redsox Mark and fill the disk with the highest bitrate to fit on a disk as possible( the rest would be wasted anyway), but I find recording direct to disk seems to be better quality than via the hard disk then to disk at the same bitrate. :beer:
     
  12. phelings

    phelings
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,025
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thats 4 to 1 so far.
    But yes,recording at the correct quality level to begin with is always better
     
  13. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,213
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,267
    5 to 1. As just about everyone has said so far the best option is to record at the bitrate you want to archive at (so you avoid a second generation copy). But if you can't then record at the highest bitrate possible as this will ensure you lose less detail.

    I can't believe this is even being debated - it's obvious to anyone who owns a HDD/DVDR combi.
     
  14. musukebba

    musukebba
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    689
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +16
    Is this one of the '4'?
    ...or this:
    But apparently not obvious to those owning a Freeview HDD/DVDR combi. What's suddenly wrong with debate, or should we just accept another individual's word for it because there is no understanding of what others have written?

    Mark's second post summed it up very well.
     
  15. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,213
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,267
    Yes it did - particularly where he said: "you might as well use a max rate for the HDD encoding - no point to encode at one low rate then dub to another low rate, assuming your HDD is large enough". Likewise "not much" still indicates Knotpc can see a difference as well! I really don't see how you can honestly think anyone is actually agreeing with the c*** you have posted in this thread.

    Just to put things into perspective for the original poster - Musukebba owns a standalone DVD recorder. He doesn't have a HDD machine and thus much of what he is saying here is what he has read on Digital Spy. I don't think he really appreciates the difference... :(

    The Sony model in question has a HQ+ recording mode: if, for whatever reason, recording in the archiving bitrate is not possible then you should record in HQ+ and use the 2pass re-encoding to convert to the required mode. Anyone who tells you it is better to record in one of the other modes and realtime dub to the new mode is, quite frankly, living on a different planet.
     
  16. knotpc

    knotpc
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Peterborough
    Ratings:
    +18
    Just to make my findings clear-
    There was a clear difference between 1hr and 2hr when recording of Sky and NTL, but not worthy in my opinion to put a 90-120 min film onto 2 dvd's. Unlike DVD to DVD, where if you really like the film and you know it's good quality eg THX you definitely would want to put it onto 2 dvd's for maximum enjoyment. :beer:
     
  17. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,213
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,267
    Totally agree with your last sentiments - like several people have commented you have to sacrifice a degree of PQ to get a reasonable recording length onto a DVDR. But to suggest, as musukebba does, that you might as well stick with a low bitrate recording anyway as there is "no difference" is simply wrong.
     
  18. Oldjim

    Oldjim
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +0
    As a newbie to DVD recorders I can see the advantage of not carrying out a second recoding but I have bought a Panasonic EH50 which seems to only allow editing on the HDD when recorded as RAM. When I want to make a copy of a didital broadcast which will play on other machine I will need to convert to -R.
    Under these circumstances is there any significant advantage in recording to the HDD at best quality before transferring at LP to the DVDR.
     
  19. redsox_mark

    redsox_mark
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,512
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Bath, England
    Ratings:
    +621
    The arguments above all apply to your EH50. The "conversion" from RAM to -R, if done as a high speed dub, does not require re-encoding of the video. The differences between RAM and -R have to do with the disc structure; how the data is organised - the actual video is the same. So you are still best at recording to HDD in the rate you want to use on DVD at the end (if it is "LP", then record in "LP"). If you can't do this, use the highest rate and do a conversion dub to the target rate for DVD.

    Mark
     

Share This Page

Loading...