IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
DVD to WMV9 with WMA9Pro 5.1 Multichannel Audio, A Guide based on Experience
~*McoreD*~
post Dec 24 2003, 02:36
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 10-July 03
From: Australia
Member No.: 7693



Hi Guys,

I would like to share this Guide here. Hope it will be useful. smile.gif



DVD to WMV9 with WMA9 Professional 5.1 Multichannel Audio

I followed this guide and backed up 8 of my DVDs so far and I am very pleased with the results.



Yours,
McoreD

Edit: 10/01/2004
Replaced the PDF with a Web Based Tutorial.
Edit: 12/01/2004
Link Updated
Edit: 29/01/2004
Link Updated
Edit: 23/03/2004
Link Updated
Edit: 12/08/2004
Link Updated

This post has been edited by ~*McoreD*~: Nov 16 2005, 10:10
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kl33per
post Dec 26 2003, 15:47
Post #2


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 841
Joined: 9-June 03
From: Brisbane, AUS
Member No.: 7078



The WMV9 codec and the WMA9Pro codec have greatly improved on there predecesors. They are now relatively viable solutions. WMV9 particulrly excels at low bitrate video encoding (although I haven't compared it to the XviD 1.0 beta's). RealVideo has also made some significant steps forward.


--------------------
www.sessions.com.au - Sessions Entertainment
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 26 2003, 16:09
Post #3


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



192 kbps isn't much for 5.1 channel sound. You should consider using higher bitrate and quality vbr modes of wma9 pro.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tripwire
post Dec 26 2003, 16:39
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 28-December 02
Member No.: 4272



192kbit WMA9Pro gives already a really nice sound for 5.1.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 26 2003, 17:07
Post #5


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (Tripwire @ Dec 26 2003, 05:39 PM)
192kbit WMA9Pro gives already a really nice sound for 5.1.

That's your opinion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kl33per
post Dec 27 2003, 02:47
Post #6


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 841
Joined: 9-June 03
From: Brisbane, AUS
Member No.: 7078



Both WMV9 and WMA9Pro are tweaked for low bitrates (particularly the video, I don't think the audio could beat HE AAC), but I agree a bitrate of around the 256 mark would be better. Still, If you want a whole movie with 5.1 Surround on 1 CD, it might be acceptable depending on how good your ears are. I certainly wouldn't go any lower.

That video resolution is also very high for such a low bitrate. I would probably reduce it considerably (i.e. 512x***).


--------------------
www.sessions.com.au - Sessions Entertainment
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 27 2003, 10:43
Post #7


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



Wma 9 can't beat anything at low bitrates. (except real audio and lc aac)

http://audio.ciara.us/test/64test/results.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LadFromDownUnder
post Dec 27 2003, 11:12
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 90
Joined: 30-July 03
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 8083



The illustrated test results are for WMA Standard (2 channels), and not WMA Professional (5.1), which is what was being discussed initially. I'm not saying WMAPro is necessarily any better than WMAStd, just that it's a different codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 27 2003, 11:54
Post #9


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



Kl33per: "I don't think the audio could beat HE AAC"
You can't encode HE AAC at bitrates over 96 using commonly available tools. It is also impossible to encode wma pro at such low bitrates.

Ps. I'm currently running a test encode. Currently it looks like 731 Kb/s isn't enough even for 704*288.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 27 2003, 22:39
Post #10


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



I finished my little test. It took only 2 hours to encode 4 minute clip using my Pentium 3 500 MHz. I set the bitrate to 731 like in the screen shot which is posted earlier into this thread. Here is a nice sample image of my encoded video. It has the original picture above the encoded picture. To be honest I must admit that the clip looks better when it's being played instead of watching still images. To be scientifical enough, here is my Avisynth script which I used to get the following image.
CODE
LoadPlugin("E:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec3.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\undot.dll")

clip1=mpeg2source("D:\CRADLE_2_THE_GRAVE\dvd2avi\cradle.d2v").crop(0,78,718,420).BicubicResize(704,288,0,0.5).Undot()

clip2=DirectShowSource("cradle.wmv",fps=25)

StackVertical(clip1,clip2)
trim(4492,4495) # to get the area I wanted

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kl33per
post Dec 28 2003, 07:45
Post #11


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 841
Joined: 9-June 03
From: Brisbane, AUS
Member No.: 7078



QUOTE (Latexxx @ Dec 27 2003, 08:54 PM)
Kl33per: "I don't think the audio could beat HE AAC"
You can't encode HE AAC at bitrates over 96 using commonly available tools.

Bitrates above 96kb/s can be used for multichannel HE AAC files.

QUOTE
It is also impossible to encode wma pro at such low bitrates.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this limitation. I don't use WMA9Pro (or Std. for that matter).

QUOTE (LadFromDownUnder @ Dec 27 2003, 08:12 PM)
The illustrated test results are for WMA Standard (2 channels), and not WMA Professional (5.1), which is what was being discussed initially.  I'm not saying WMAPro is necessarily any better than WMAStd, just that it's a different codec.

WAM9Pro can also do 2 channel, it's not limited to 5.1.

QUOTE
Wma 9 can't beat anything at low bitrates. (except real audio and lc aac)

No, in this test WMA9Std, Real, and QT AAC (LC AAC) are tied.


--------------------
www.sessions.com.au - Sessions Entertainment
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 28 2003, 10:06
Post #12


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (kl33per @ Dec 28 2003, 08:45 AM)
QUOTE
Wma 9 can't beat anything at low bitrates. (except real audio and lc aac)

No, in this test WMA9Std, Real, and QT AAC (LC AAC) are tied.

That is why I put the comment in the brackets. Wma std is only a little bit better on average but the difference is too low to make any conclusions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Dec 30 2003, 14:36
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



~*McoreD*~

great guide!
as you seem to support wm9 so much, i wanted to ask you if you are somehow affiliated with microsoft?


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 30 2003, 19:21
Post #14


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



Yes. The guide is pretty good but it should tell more about avs script generation or refer to Gordian Knot or something similar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Liquid_Predator
post Dec 30 2003, 20:57
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 112
Joined: 13-June 03
From: Gent
Member No.: 7164



QUOTE (bond @ Dec 30 2003, 05:36 AM)
~*McoreD*~

great guide!
as you seem to support wm9 so much, i wanted to ask you if you are somehow affiliated with microsoft?

That is not necessary true. WM9 is indeed a very good codec and is the only that gives nice quality for 1CD-rips (IMHO). Although I do not recommend using 5.1 sound for 1CD-rips.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Latexxx
post Dec 30 2003, 21:25
Post #16


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 12-May 03
From: Finland
Member No.: 6557



QUOTE (Liquid_Predator @ Dec 30 2003, 09:57 PM)
QUOTE (bond @ Dec 30 2003, 05:36 AM)
~*McoreD*~

great guide!
as you seem to support wm9 so much, i wanted to ask you if you are somehow affiliated with microsoft?

That is not necessary true. WM9 is indeed a very good codec and is the only that gives nice quality for 1CD-rips (IMHO). Although I do not recommend using 5.1 sound for 1CD-rips.

Have you tried lowering resolution or/and Real 9?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
unplugged
post Dec 31 2003, 00:09
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: 9-March 02
From: Sicily
Member No.: 1469



Real 9

I have never seen only 1 real video clip without that horrible pastel filtering.
Image HAS NO dynamics.
sorry... but it's so evident.

Except for very low bitrate, IMHO XviD 1.0 has a very positive detail/artifact ratio.


--------------------
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tripwire
post Dec 31 2003, 00:42
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 28-December 02
Member No.: 4272



Just another random comment:

There's WMV9 and WMV9Pro. However you can't explicitely choose between the two. I don't know the exact criteria to make Windows Media Encoder chose it, but all my full PAL (720x576) 1.2mbit 2-pass VBR encodes use WMV9Pro instead of WMV9. While some low bitrate tests at 600-700kbit just used WMV9. What the difference between the two is? Didn't get a MS representative to answer me that one.

This post has been edited by Tripwire: Dec 31 2003, 00:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Jan 5 2004, 17:26
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



QUOTE (unplugged @ Dec 31 2003, 12:09 AM)
Except for very low bitrate, IMHO XviD 1.0 has a very positive detail/artifact ratio.

thats my opinion too

QUOTE (Tripwire @ Dec 31 2003, 12:42 AM)
There's WMV9 and WMV9Pro.

where do you read that?


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
~*McoreD*~
post Jan 10 2004, 12:27
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 10-July 03
From: Australia
Member No.: 7693



Hi all,

@Bond,

Thank you for the nice comment.
I am part of MicrosoftUserNetwork. It is an independent User Organization.

@Latexxx,
QUOTE
I finished my little test. It took only 2 hours to encode 4 minute clip using my Pentium 3 500 MHz.

Bud, you would do a better work using a codec more suited to ancient hardware, like WMV7 or WMV8.
Not surprised with your encoding times dude; my first WMV9 rip was done in a Pentium II 400, and it took 26 hours for me to finish it.
I used WMV8 in a Pentium 4 3GHz and it took only 2 and half hours to finish encoding.
But I would rather like to spend 4 more extra hours to encode to WMV9 for my psychological satisfaction.

QUOTE
Yes. The guide is pretty good but it should tell more about avs script generation or refer to Gordian Knot or something similar.

I have updated the AviSynth Script generated part. The tutorial is now in a Web Based format with screenshots. I made a small tool which could do the basic AviSynth Script generation for WME9, so I hope that sections wouldnít be much of a problem now.

@Liquid_Predator,
Yes mate, WM9 is the only that gave nice quality for 1CD-rips for me too; I repeat: WMV and WMA are both low bitrate optimized codecs, so they are ideal for this situation.
Thatís the sole reason why I like WM and I personally like to have Windows Media Player as the only installed Media Player + I like it to play its native codec Windows Media Audio/Video.

@Tripwire,
Thatís very true. I had the same experience. WME picks Windows Media Video 9 Professional at somewhere around more than 1400 kbps for Video. That surprised me, since there is no option anywhere to choose that codec. May be thatís the codec which is optimized for high bitrates, (while Windows Media Video 9 is optimized for lower bit rates).


Well, I have updates the Guide to a Web Based one, please feel free to reply any more questions/comments. Thank you, smile.gif

Yours,
McoreD

This post has been edited by ~*McoreD*~: Jan 10 2004, 12:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Jan 10 2004, 14:22
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



QUOTE (~*McoreD*~ @ Jan 10 2004, 12:27 PM)
I am part of MicrosoftUserNetwork. It is an independent User Organization.

QUOTE
MSUN (Microsoft User Network) is an unofficial independent organization aimed at improving the feedback between Microsoft and consumers. Our role is to help Microsoft to maintain and improve its position as world leader as software producer.

http://www.microsoftusernetwork.com/corporate/index.htm

hm sounds wierd blink.gif


i suppose you know what you are doing dry.gif


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarax
post Jan 10 2004, 15:11
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 10-January 04
Member No.: 11103



Why?
What is weird into a group of people trying to estabilishing a dialogue with MS instead of bashing it all of the time?
MS Windows Media is a nice tech and MS newsgroups are usually a nice place where to discuss it.
So, it seems natural to me that people who likes MS tech creates some web sites similar to the dozens of pro other tech ones...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Jan 10 2004, 15:36
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



well at least for me it sounds wierd, cause i am not the type of person who pushes for free a proprieatary codec (or other proprieatary software), helping a company to earn more money...
not to speak about m$'s business policies, i cant imagine anyone not getting paid by m$ or an organisation related to them to support this company (or even fighting "to help Microsoft to maintain and improve its position as world leader as software producer" for free blink.gif damn if this is not wierd than i dont know anything else that is wierd wink.gif )

but thats only my opinion, doesnt mean that they dont exist smile.gif

if someone supports m$ because of idealism i have nothing against it, altough i would call this behaviour "wierd" laugh.gif


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarax
post Jan 10 2004, 15:58
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 10-January 04
Member No.: 11103



Well, there are many others proprietary standards with so many supporters...
The most shiny example is Apple... Weird enough, no one says they are weird...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bond
post Jan 10 2004, 16:06
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 881
Joined: 11-October 02
Member No.: 3523



apple is not a standard

in contrary to m$ apple supports/pushes open standards, like aac, whereas m$ long time ago stopped to further develop their open standard mpeg-4 video codec and decided to develop an own closed spec proprieatary format, called windows media, which is btw not better than good mpeg-4 implementations

thats what makes m$'s business policy different from the ones of other companies, ie apples


--------------------
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2014 - 19:41