This forum is for users to exchange information and discuss with other users about a TMPGEnc product.
In case you need official support, please contact TMPG Inc.
TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 BBS [ Sorted by thread creation date ]
I see that release 5.0.6.23 has been available on the Japan site since April 2nd.
Perhaps it wil be out for the rest of us using release 5.0.5.22 soon.
I created files for BluRay to mpeg 2 with TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 5 I've imported into TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 to create menus and disc and the same are re-encoded again with a bit rate of less than 8000 "editable" smart rendering in this way it becomes useless software Video Mastering 5.
There is no way to prevent Authoring Works 5 redo the encoding?
The use of Video Mastering 5 has been necessary to use filters
"Sorry for grammatical errors but I do not speak English well"
We hereby confirm I have used blue ray standard mpeg compilant
I created the file bit rate of about 14000
when importing files created in TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5, the average bit rate is 8000 I tried to set the average bit rate to 14000, but recoding the whole thing and it takes about an hour and a half and a blue ray creandomi with lower bit rate and created disc is free for 25%
Can you post a screenshot of where you're seeing the 8000 bitrate?
It still sounds like you've selected DVD-Video as your output format in AUTHORING WORKS 5 (I'm not talking about the video created with Video Mastering Works 5).
I do not know how to send the screenshot.
Then you say at the outset that the files created with TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 5 are in Blu Ray PAL 25 fps
amount when they choose in TMPGEnc Authoring Works as a project 5 blue ray PAL select the source files and add in track 1 then I press settings, then video and see the list of features including bitrate strangely I indicates 8000 and does not indicate correctly the bitarate used by TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 5.
Then I did a test I converted with TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 5, a video file in question blu ray project from PAL to NTSC amount of the file created in TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5, blue ray NTSC project and I correctly marks the bit rate used by TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works 5 which in this case is 13 765
Maybe TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 does not recognize files created with Mastering in blue ray 5 PAL.
I hope I have been more comprehensive.
I can't recreate your results. I encoded a file in Video Mastering Works 5 with the Blu-ray PAL output template. This file was then imported into Authoring Works 5 with Blu-ray PAL output. Bitrate is fine and the file smart renders. http://i45.tinypic.com/t7cytf.png
You can upload your screenshot to tinypic.com and post the link to the image here.
I did some tests and the problem and only in mpeg 2 no x264 720x576 PAL SD resolutions and in the other hand all right, but unfortunately I need to use this format because I am transferring files of old super 8 in blue ray, which makes it pointless to use superiorei resolutions could use x264 but the time for the radoppia econding
OK, now I see what the problem. I think it is expecting DVD bitrates, probably because the SD resolutions for Blu-ray were designed for backwards compatibility with DVD-Video.
Encode the video as PAL DVD and it will smart render in Authoring Works 5.
At this point, I'm not sure if this is an error or not. Maybe I can find the Blu-ray official specification somewhere.
You'd be right if it did with resolution 720x480 in NTSC at 29.97 fps SD MPEG 2 but rather with the latter TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 recognizes it as video files for blue ray
Good catch! Encoding at MP@HL for SD PAL MPEG-2 for Blu-ray seems to be the issue.
A workaround until they fix it is encoding at MP@ML in Video Mastering Works 5; doing so will allow the video to be smart rendered and retain the higher bitrate in Authoring Works 5.
Perfect!
We hope to be terminated because of Mastering 5 and selected @ mp automatic "becomes natural to leave the default" file and output are all @ hl.
is it possible to create a slideshow with only one I frame for each slide, of course without transition and animation. The file created will be shorter (about ten times for slides of 5 seconds). The product DMF7 from Corel do this.
Thanks
Anyone else have an issue where to program is seriously undersizing their projects? I created a project with 64 tracks, 3 seasons of a tv show, and told it to make it 23000mb in size. It took 5 hours to encode, and the end result, my directory is only 13 gigs. 10 gigs difference? All the files would easily fit on a bluray before they were authored, yet the program stated originally that they would take over 75 gigs as it wanted to encode everything at 3000. I did not manually edit each one down to the appropriate bitrate, but I should not have had to. So I am wondering do I waste another 5 hours of encoding, or do I just say screw it. I had the same issue with a previous job I setup where I told it to make the files the size of a bluray automatically, with no custom size, and it still drastically undersized the job to 16 gigs.
The reason I have so many tracks, is because each episode has 5 chapters. So I can not just drop an entire season into 1 track, unless I do not import the chapter information. Kind of annoying when you want to be able to skip the intro or ending of the episodes. Does anyone have any tips on how to fix this serious issue with size calculation?
NO it does not. The files that are created are even smaller than the source files. I have just tired the same project again, this time telling it to make it the size of a dual layer, and the final output is only 37 gigs. What is the point of having a target for our final output if the program can not do the math to calculate the bitrate required to make the project the proper size? Is ANYONE else having this problem. I am seriously regretting spending the cash for this program, because if this is how things are going to go with multi track blurays, then this program is not worth the money I spent on it.
How could the produced disc look and play to my satisfaction when it is no where near the size/quality I wanted? I am going to try to manually set the bitrate for all 64 tracks, and see if that works. Damn this is going to suck.
I'm a TAW user, all the way back to 1, and TAW-4 works great. However, I'm having the same problem with TAW-5. I'll make a project, and TAW-5 says its rendered files will be 20Gb quantity. So, I let it author the shows, and it completes the authoring. HOWEVER, when I try to burn the files (IMGBurn) to Blu-Ray discs, ImgBurn says the rendered files are too large (which they are!). Those supposed 20Gb of files now may be 29Gb after rendering. Help, please!!!
Thx for the answer but this is for Video Mastering Works 5 and not Authoring Works 5.
So I think I did get the wrong software then...
Thank God I still can use Authoring Works 4 !
on the product sheet of TWA 5 you have some examples in which time full encoding will work.
Your Benchmarks was done with i7-2600, GeForce 550TI.
In which way will 6 cores increase the speed (i7-3900K) and how would a newer graphic CUDA-card will fasten up (GTX 580, GTX680 oder two GTX580 with SLI)?
Have done many many test - there is NO WAY to get TWA5 Smart-Rendering work with recorded HD-Movies (tried: .ts, .m2ts, complete demux to h264).
with SD-recordings (same recording software) there are no problems and it works fine!
I can't understand this. TWA4 was terrible for HD recordings (jumps and lacks in audio bekause of ignoration of sync-tags, converting every h264-File to mpeg and blow up the size unnecessary)...
so my new hope was for TWA5 - and I'm dissapointed again. I regret the last update from 3->4 and to 5 I'll not do so.
I'll further use DVR-Studio-HD (www.haenlein-software.de) to convert my recordings to a audio synchronus AVCHD or BluRay. The only missing things are the whole menu and cutting options like TWA. DVR-Studio only needs about 8 - 10 minutes for a 90 min. HD-movie. TWA 5 needs 2 hours for this??? WHY??? (on an Q6600 System)
Why can Haehlein do this with a fraction of mony for licence and a fraction of time - without using cuda, intel sync or something else???
What's going from there?
And last but not least - I would have done further tests to give TWA new chances to change my mind - but now the 14 days testing period are over and I don't spend money and and/or time for doing your beta-testing phase!
Regards
Tom
sadly I'll turn my back to TWA and I'll looking forward
There certainly seems to be some issues with h.264 smart rendering, but I have been able to smart render some HD WTV files and HD video from a GoPro camera so some HD files can be smart rendered at this point.
I think there are massive problems - and still since TWA4. I have simply recorded HD files - using KNC-One Card and DVB-Viewer Software, which creates h264 conform .ts streams...
And on the other hand - in the feature list is this as a special feature mentioned - no information about that it works perhaps and only in special cases whith HD....
Why there are so many other software on market, which can this since about 2 years and tmpg doesn't got it to work? Is this a licencing problem which are not used for an all customers satisfying software?
I thing you should ask them in japanese language. They have never asked me - I was using english. Maybe it is a cause. Maybe Pegasys don't read this forum at all, ...or maybe smart rendering is only a decoy:-)))
The upgrade from 4/23 has not fixed the smart rendering issue. the original file, avchd h264 hd from a sony camera had a bitrate of about 16000 kbs and the resultant file had a bit rate greater than 18000.
I'm trying to create BDs with 2 or more movies captured with a Hauppauge 1212 DVR. They are 1080i AVCHD, VBR, 13.5Mbps max, NTSC; (Audio is Dolby digital, 2ch, 48KHz, 384kbs). TAW5 demo detected them as VBR, 15Mbps max and it does not allow me to output them without re-encoding. Under the same circumstances, when authoring a DVD, TAW4 will allow me to just output the movies if I say "none" for the media size. Is it because the movies are interlaced? Is it because it's a demo? And if I can't avoid re-encoding, can I reduce the processing time in some other way/setting?
For example, I tried to author 2X 2hr6min movies, on per track, detected as 8.95Mpbs and 10.264Mbps average bitrate, respectively, with a non-frills, skeleton top menu. It took 6.5 hrs to transcode to the same bitrate as the sources. I set each track properties to exactly the bitrate of each source, and to "not allow for resizing" (without this last, it would have taken more than 9hrs). I tried both with "none" and "custom size" settings; it re-encodes not matter what. How do I prevent this to happen? Should I use some other program to deinterlace and re-encode them as 1080p beforehand? Anything will be faster than this!
(BTW, I don't have CUDA, my card it ATI. My rig is an I7-920 OC20% with 12GB memory; it's quite fast with any other software, including TAW4 and TE40.)
I'm happy with TAW4 for making DVDs and BDs in MPEG format. I'm evaluating the TAW5 trial version to see if I upgrade or buy it for AVCHD usage. I have about 800-900 AVCHD movies accumulated and I need the space. Any advice will be appreciated.
I tried about 10 different 'avc' files, with differing audio etc, and never got TAW5 to work with the file without re-encoding. As it stands it's TAW4 with supposedly x264 support. I regretted getting TAW4(same as TAW3 with mpeg2 blu ray) because of it's lack of x264 support, so I won't be upgrading this time.
Thank you Dave518 for you rapid response. I actually investigated a bit more and discovered that the AVC files that Hauppauge produces are not only interlaced, but also of "Main@L4.0" profile, whatever that is. I know they play on top-set BD players bcs I tried generating BD without menus (tsMuxeR + ImgBurn) and they worked. However, the standard for BD is "High@L...". This probably causes TAW5 to re-encode my files. Surely it would be good if more MP4 flavors were accepted w/o re-encoding.
However, I'm leaning to upgrade now, because I found a way to do it faster and at the same time deinterlacing to 1080p. In this final test, apart from changing from Interlace to Progressive, asking for re-encode (not smart rendering), and setting max and ave bitrates as the sources, I also changed from "somewhat fast" to "Fastest" in the general track tab. This made a lot of difference. It's now running a re-encode that should take less or about 3hrs. Considering that I'm de-interlacing 4.25 hrs of 1080i movie, it does not seem a bad deal. And the PC usage is the same as with "somewhat fast". As for the de-interlacing quality, I don't know. TAW5 does not give any choices here; the 3min test I did prior to this run does not reveal much of a difference in my 1080p pc monitor. I know the output is progressive only because Super says so.
In any case (and even if I'll upgrade now) I'll be waiting for Pegasys to review this issue and see if there is any bug lurking here. It should give us the choice of not re-encoding. It's troublesome that for none of your trials it let you do so. Would an already compliant file be accepted? Have you tried to run TAW5 twice? Like using the output of the first time as input for the second? It it doesn't, it's a bug. This will be my next test, and I'll report here the result.
In your case, I think the profile is the reason your file is being fully re-encoded. However, I think there is a bug with smart rendering certain h.264 files. For instance, I can't smart render a h.264 Blu-ray encoded with TAW5!
Also, the trial does not limit smart rendering; if your file can be smart rendered, that's how it will be handled by default. When it can be smart rendered, you have the option to fully re-encode it if you wish, but obviously, it won't work the other way around.
The Japanese version was updated recently, but I can't tell if it solved some of the smart rendering issues.
Thank you tkrave. You're right; it has to be the profile: I run TAW5 again using as input the movies in the BD I created before; with smart rendering, fastest, etc. and it took only 23min (Now it says: "Outputting lossless video" instead of "x264 renderer active"!!!). As I did not copy to HD, this is just the time for reading the 19GB directly from the BD. For one reason or another, after the first run, the first movie stull appeared Interlaced, while the 2nd is now Progressive. The second run took both without re-processing. So it doesn't matter whether it is i or p, as long as the profile is High.
I would still like to find a faster solution. 3.5hr of deinterlacing for a ~4.2hrs of 1080i movie is not bad, but it's not great either. I'll also have to count some time for creating decent looking menus, (background, sound, etc.), plus the actual recording time. Again it's good for one special movie, but not for the hundreds. Is there any other program which would de-interlace fast(er) this type of movies?
If I were to leave the movies interlaced, or just de-interlace in some other way, apparently changing the profile is not impossible, with a binary editor. For what wikipedia says, Main is the base for all the other profiles. So it will be like creating a very inefficient High profile movie, which only uses Main profile functions. Would TAW5 smart-render a "doctored" file like this?
I'll research my two questions and write back the results here. If anybody knows or have done this, please let me know.
wtf? creating first a bluray from recording, then import to cut?
I've tried out this way - doesn't match again. allways I got "FR" thanks....
PLEASE work ON your Smart Rendering routines!!!!