Will I be able to open my TMPGenc Xpress 4 projects with this version?

You can, but it warns you that it may not be able to convert every aspect of your 4.0 XPress project over to tvmw5.

By default it will only look for tvmw5 project files, so you have to make sure you select to view all file types when importing the 4.0 xpress project file.

Thanks tkrave.

Tmpgenc 5.1.1.52 is duplicating frames in the output. I have posted an 8 second video input,
recorded in HD 1920 x 1080, progressive scan, 30p, on a JVC GY-HM100U camera in Quicktime .MOV format.
File is: www.sportsflashtech.com/video/stutter/765_0636_01.MOV
For output I select DVD-Video standard MPEG file, 16:9 aspect ratio, CBR, set Average video bitrate to 8500,
select Display_mode: Progressive, Encode, Export.
It takes only a few seconds to encode.
I posted the output file, www.sportsflashtech.com/video/stutter/765_0636_01-8500k-8s.mpg
Go back to Edit, add file, select 765_0636_01-8500-8s.mpg, Cut-edit, then play/single-frame to frame number 92.
Now step one more frame and you will see frame 92 is duplicated. Also duplicated is frame 186 and frame 279.
When I repeated this encode, I did not get duplication in the output the second time. However the reason I reduced the failure to a simple 8 second video clip is when I encoded my entire video,
consisting of 3G across 10 .MOV files, I was getting a much higher frame duplication rate: every 3rd frame
was duplicated!!
What is going on here?
I am on Windows 7 64bit. I use the Calibrated Software codec,
http://www.calibratedsoftware.com/QXD.asp

Thanks for any advice. At this time I am continuing with TMPGenc 4 XPress.

I just started a trial of VMW5 and it's pretty damn good with one huge exception - DTS support!!! I'm very impressed with everything and how it actually works. (compared to the tons of products out there that are bug-ridden clones)

For the $99 price tag it should handle DTS. IMO it's worth $29 without DTS. Just one persons opinion, no need to go nuclear on me!

I may still buy it, but having to extract my DTS streams, convert then to AC3, then select the AC3 file is time consuming chore akin to command line freeware not a robust product like VMW5.

Still, I'm very impressed with this program. It will actually output to HD WMV with 5.1 audio properly. Squeeze 7 at 6X the price has yet to get that right.

Also would be nice to have VC1 as video codec choice for WMV...

I totally agree, more than half of my Blu-Ray's have DTS audio! Its a real pain to save to mkv, convert and re-mux the DTS to ac3 and then bring it back into TMPGEnc5.

Hopefully they i will look at fixing this ASAP, otherwise i will have to find another program.

Hi,

I also agree that the missing support for DTS audio is not very nice and at the moment for me a reason to wait for the upgrade from TMPCEnc XPress 4.

Is there a workaround available?
e.g. recoding the audio with another program and add it to the project without reencoding the audio again?
I saw in the trial of VMW5 that now M2TS output is supported so I can muxx it. But on the other hand I prefer MP4 because it contains less overhead.

Bye
Jens

Strongly agree, here we are in 2014 and still no DTS support. I now own BlueRay disks with *only* DTS audio. I can't use TMSR4 or TVMW5 for disks without handling the audio via other tools. Please add support for DTS!

In Video Mastering Works, I see 23.976, 24 and 29.97 fps for
1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template) but I only see 23.976, 24 and
59.94 fps for 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template). There is no 29.97 fps for 1280x720 Blu-ray standard template.

I assume the templates are Blu-ray compliant so not sure if I should change the framerates in them manually.


1. If my source video is 720p and 29.97 progressive, what setting template should I use: 29.97 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?
Would the output also be progressive or interlaced?

2. If my source video is 720p and 23.976 progressive, what setting template should I use: 23.976 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?
Would the output also be progressive or interlaced?

3. If my source video is 480p and 29.97 progressive, what setting template should I use: 29.97 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?
Would the output also be progressive or interlaced?

Thank you for your help

>In Video Mastering Works, I see 23.976, 24 and 29.97 fps for
>1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template) but I only see 23.976, 24 and
>59.94 fps for 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template). There is no 29.97 fps for 1280x720 Blu-ray standard template.
>
>I assume the templates are Blu-ray compliant so not sure if I should change the framerates in them manually.

You are correct, those are BD compliant so you shouldn't change the framerates. 29.97 fps is not compliant for 1280x720 resolution for the BD format.

>1. If my source video is 720p and 29.97 progressive, what setting template should I use: 29.97 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?

Technically, you can use any template you want. However, I would use something close to the source characteristics such as 1280x720 59.94fps. Using that template will simply double the framerate.

>Would the output also be progressive or interlaced?

Depends on what resolution and framerate you choose. All 1280x720 resolutions are going to be progressive. The other BD resolutions can be interlaced depending on your framerate. DVD-Video resolutions (which are also BD compliant) will always be interlaced.

>
>2. If my source video is 720p and 23.976 progressive, what setting template should I use: 23.976 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?

Again, I would just stick with the source resolution, which in this case is already BD compliant. Save disc space and let your player do the upscaling.

>
>3. If my source video is 480p and 29.97 progressive, what setting template should I use: 29.97 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?

In this situation, you can stick with an SD resolution of 720x480 with 29.97fps, but it will have to be interlaced. Or, you can upscale to 1280x720 59.94fps. If you do go with a higher resolution, you can try applying filters such as Contour to help make details sharper.

These are all just suggestions. As mentioned, you can choose whatever resolution and framerate you like as long as it's compliant. I tend to like to keep the source resolution and framerate if I can, but if I have to change it, I like to go higher, rather than lower. If you go from a 29.97fps to a 24 fps, frames will have to be dropped. Going to a higher framerate will allow you to preserve all frames.

Wow thank you tkrave!

1. "If my source video is 720p and 29.97 progressive, what setting template should I use: 29.97 fps 1920x1080 (standard Blu-ray template), 23.976 fps 1280x720 (standard Blu-ray template) or something else?"

'Technically, you can use any template you want. However, I would use something close to the source characteristics such as 1280x720 59.94fps. Using that template will simply double the framerate.'


Sorry for the really dumb question but I have to ask to make sure I get it right the first time. Are you saying that if my source is 720p and 29.97 progressive, I should choose the 1280x720 59.94fps Blu-ray template ? Doubling the framerate in this situation would benefit me the most by using 59.94 instead of 23.976 fps or 24 fps ?

I am just a bit confused. You say choose as close to source characteristics as possible but there is no 29.97 fps for 1280x720 so I should choose 59.94 fps instead for best video picture?






2. "Save disc space and let your player do the upscaling."

So am I right in assuming my blu-ray player will ALWAYS do a better job of upscaling video than Video Mastering Works encoding to 1080p? Is it really that much better or just a small difference between upscaling with blu-ray player vs Video Mastering Works ?

The space saved is not really that big a deal to me. Best video quality output to screen would be what I want.






3. "If you do go with a higher resolution, you can try applying filters such as Contour to help make details sharper."
Should I choose just one instance of Contour filter or do you recommend more of 1 filter at same time.




Thanks for the GREAT advice!

>Sorry for the really dumb question but I have to ask to make sure I get it right the first time. Are you saying that if my source is 720p and 29.97 progressive, I should choose the 1280x720 59.94fps Blu-ray template ? Doubling the framerate in this situation would benefit me the most by using 59.94 instead of 23.976 fps or 24 fps ?
>
>I am just a bit confused. You say choose as close to source characteristics as possible but there is no 29.97 fps for 1280x720 so I should choose 59.94 fps instead for best video picture?
>
Sorry, I guess that is a bit confusing since 59.94 does not seem closer to 29.97 when compared to 24 or 23.976.
Basically, yes, since you can't choose 29.97, I would choose 59.94. Even though it's not "closer" in terms of the number of frames, it will preserve all frame data since it is simply doubling the framerate. As I said towards the end of my reply, if you choose to go with a lower framerate such as 23.976 or 24, frames will have to be dropped and you won't be able to reconstruct them if you decide you need to go back to 29.97fps in the future (unless you hang on to the source file).

In the big scheme of things, those dropped frames will hardly be noticeable, but it's my preference to keep as much detail/frames as possible and stay as true to the source as possible. Doubling the framerate in this case will allow that.

>2. "Save disc space and let your player do the upscaling."
>
>So am I right in assuming my blu-ray player will ALWAYS do a better job of upscaling video than Video Mastering Works encoding to 1080p? Is it really that much better or just a small difference between upscaling with blu-ray player vs Video Mastering Works ?
>
>The space saved is not really that big a deal to me. Best video quality output to screen would be what I want.
>
I wouldn't say a player is ALWAYS going to be better than TVMW5, I'm just saying players do a good enough job and 720p is a high enough resolution that upscaling it manually might not be noticeably beneficial.

Going from 720p to 1080p is not that big of a difference to my eyes, so it's my preference to let the player do the upscaling in that case.
Going from 480 to 1080p is a different matter though, and there's a much wider margin to add in more detail or remove noise with filters.

In the end, it's really up to you. You can try to apply filters to your 720p video and output it as 1080p if you think it'll help.

>
>3. "If you do go with a higher resolution, you can try applying filters such as Contour to help make details sharper."
>Should I choose just one instance of Contour filter or do you recommend more of 1 filter at same time.

It depends on the quality of the source video. I would start with contour as it helps define edges. Smart Sharpen is another filter you can try. You can also try the regular Sharpen filter, but I never really use it. While it is possible to create multiple instances of 1 filter, I've never had to do that. If you think it makes your video look better, then go for it. Play around with the settings until it looks good to you.

Thanks tkrave!


I do understand what you said about keeping it as close to original source characteristics as possible.

But I do have one more question regarding doubling the framerate.

Suppose I don't care about saving space or encoding time but having the BEST video quality is the most important to me.

If my source video is 720p and 23.976 progressive, wouldn't it it be better to choose then 1280x720 59.94 fps progressive instead of 23.976 fps?

Here is my line of thinking so let me know if it is right or wrong. I know that the blu-ray player will upscale the resoultion from 720p to 1080p but I don't think the blu-ray player will double the framerate as well. Since having a 59.94 framerate is much better in term of video quality than 23.976 fps (since there are more frames per second thus producing smoother picture), wouldn't it be best to encode to 59.94 fps for source video that is 23.976 fps as well - to achieve BEST video quality ?

Let me know if I err in my thinking regarding this and thank you

If your source is 720p 23.976fps, your BD player wouldn't need to do anything to it since it is already compliant. In that case, I would output with the same 23.976 fps. Using 59.94 is more than double the framerate and I believe it will do a 3-2-3-2 pattern with the frames (3 identical frames, then 2 identical frames, repeat). I may be wrong about that though. These types of framerate conversions can be confusing.

Doubling the framerate will not product a smoother picture for a 29.97 progressive source because perceptually it will be identical; there is simply two identical frames spanning the time of what used to be one frame.

Yes I thought doubling the framerate would double your pleasure as well but was wrong about it. Thanks for setting me straight about it.

I know all 1280x720 resolutions are progressive but have question whether to set 1920x1080 to progressive or interlaced at output.

At 1920x1080 blu-ray template, I think all 23.976 fps are also progressive (or at least set by default).



But if the output framerate is set to 29.97, I think I can choose progressive or interlaced.

1. Isn't progressive suppose to be better than interlaced so you suppose to choose progressive whenever possible?

2. If my source is 720p and 23.976fps progressive and upscaling, I would choose 1920x1080 23.976 progressive. Is this correct?

2. If my source is 720p and 29.97fps progressive and upscaling, I would choose 1920x1080 29.97 progressive. Is this correct or should it be interlaced? Interstingly, Video mastering Works always sets it to interlaced by default and I have to change it.


Thanks tkrave

>I know all 1280x720 resolutions are progressive but have question whether to set 1920x1080 to progressive or interlaced at output.
>
>At 1920x1080 blu-ray template, I think all 23.976 fps are also progressive (or at least set by default).

Yes, at 1080, 23.976 should be progressive.

>But if the output framerate is set to 29.97, I think I can choose progressive or interlaced.

This should always be interlaced at 1080.

>1. Isn't progressive suppose to be better than interlaced so you suppose to choose progressive whenever possible?

Yes, but be aware of the format limitations; setting to progressive manually may make it non-compliant.

>2. If my source is 720p and 23.976fps progressive and upscaling, I would choose 1920x1080 23.976 progressive. Is this correct?

Yes

>2. If my source is 720p and 29.97fps progressive and upscaling, I would choose 1920x1080 29.97 progressive. Is this correct or should it be interlaced? Interstingly, Video mastering Works always sets it to interlaced by default and I have to change it.
>
At 1920x1080, 29.97 fps is supposed to be interlaced, which is why TVWM5 sets it as that. Setting it to progressive will make it non-compliant.

Take a look at this chart to see what is compliant for a BD video stream:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-ray#Video

Just wanted to clarify that converting interlaced to progressive is not ALWAYS better. It all depends on how you're doing the conversion. For instance, going from 25 fps interlaced to 25 fps progressive is not a good conversion because you'll actually be losing detail. In that case you would have to double the framerate in order to preserve all of the fields.

Hello,

I am using T5 to encode Blu-ray and DVD from the same .avi source file. The DVD encoding is taking a really long time on my W7, i7-920 machine with plenty of ram & hard drives...

A one hour file will take 4-5 hours to encode with using the contour & color correction filter. Without the filters it is quicker, but not that much.

When I look at CPU usage I am only getting about 25%. Is there a way to use more cores so I do not have to render my long projects overnight?

Thanks for your help.

It seems like the "Standard encoder" used for MPEG-2 encoding is not as optimized as the x264 encoder, so not all cores are being used. My CPU shows about 30% usage when encoding to DVD-Video. For me, output time is about 1hr 25min for a 1hr show without filters. With color correction and contour, the time was about 3hr 30min. Source file was an MPEG-2 WTV file at 1080i. That was with using CUDA for filtering. Using an i7 2600 3.4GHz, 8GB RAM and GeForce GTX 460.

At first I thought that maybe there just wasn't enough data processing for the CPU to use 100% of its cores, but I tried outputting a 1920x1080 MPEG-2 with a high bitrate and still only get 30-38% CPU usage. However, using x264 for full 1080p output will get 100% CPU usage, so I definitely think there is an optimization issue with the standard encoder.

Thanks for your reply. I agree. mpeg-2 does not seem optimized. Seems like it would be easy to fill up the CPUs!

Does the company read this board? I have sent some e-mails via tech support in the past and really did not hear back. What is the best way to bring this to the attention of the company? 70% of the CPU is a lot to be left on the table.

Although I just learned you can open two instances of T5 at the same time so at least I can encode two files (Blu-ray & DVD of the same project) at the same time. The CPU only hits 60% during this setup.

There is an option under Format to check or uncheck:
Soften Block Noise
Intra-block 35 (default)
Non Intrablock 35 (default)

Should this option need to ever be checked when encoding to DVD or Blu-ray MPEG-2 ?

My emphasis is video image quality. How does checking affect this?

If so, what should be the correct setting for Intra-block and Non intrablock as well?

Thank you

The first thing you need to ask is do you have blocknoise?

If not, then you don't need to use it.
If you do notice large blocks or rectangles (typically in fast moving scenes) then you can try to use it. Low-bitrate videos tend to have a lot of block noise.

If you're outputting to a low bitrate video then it probably will not help much.
The correct setting depends on the serverity of the block noise and your own personal preference. In other words, try it at the default settings and see if you like the results and adjust from there.

Hello everyone. Norton 2012 finds a Trojan(W5trofan.H) in the latest download of Masterworks 5. It won't even let the program finish downloading sometimes. When it does, I find I can install it, but then Norton finds this virus and keeps deleting tmpgencvmw5.exe. This keeps happening even if I set it to exclude.
Any ideas what's going on here?
Thanks

Thanks to another user's suggestion in a related thread, Norton has been notified of this issue and report that it will be fixed in their next update (a week at most).
Good work, everybody

Some time when I import some videos while in cut/edit mode I notice there are large gaps between frames thumbnail window. When video is played in this window it plays almost perfectly except when there is panning and this causes some jerky motion.

Does anyone know the reason for this missing frames?

Thanks

What type of file is this? What is the source? I typically see this in my imported WTV files, and the gaps appear when there is corruption or a weak signal in the video stream.

It could also just be the file type. Certain file types seem to display differently in the thumbnail strip. You can right-click on the preview and change the viewing options for the thumbnails.

I frequently get the following message when transcoding a DVD or Blue Ray: "The selected disk contains titles with audio that cannot be decoded". Yet other transcoding products I own can handle the source content without complaint. Why is the more expensive Mastering Works program not able to handle what cheaper programs can't?

That's strange. Besides DTS, all of the audio formats for the DVD and Blu-ray standards are supported. Do you know what the actual audio format is?

>That's strange. Besides DTS, all of the audio formats for the DVD and Blu-ray standards are supported. Do you know what the actual audio format is?

DTS it is and its very common on BRs I've seen and it is handled by less sophisticated transcoding programs. Given what I paid for TPMGEnc products I expect better. Is there any option for plugions for DTS in TPMGEnc?

I'm not aware of any way to get DTS imported into TVMW5 and I don't know if support will be added, but I'm hoping it will be.

> I'm not aware of any way to get DTS imported into TVMW5 and I don't know if support will be added, but I'm hoping it will be.

tkrave: Why can TVMW5 not use the same techniques as TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress to pull audio tracks from stream files? I can pull DTS (HD Master Audio) tracks from an m2ts file using the DirectShow file reader.

I guess my point is this: I started playing with TVMW5 today to see if I wanted to upgrade. I'll grant you this much - the interface is much nicer than TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress, with wizards to process Blu-ray directory structures in place that replace my manual methods with 4.0. But, like a lot of your users, I'm a guy whose used to using command line utilities like eac3to - I'm more interested in functionality than fancy gui screens and wizards.

I'll wait to upgrade until all of the 4.0 functionality is there at least.

I never said there was absolutely no way to do it; I, personally, don't know of a way to do it. If you found a way in 4.0 XPress, then try it in TVMW5.

BTW, I hope you don't think I work for them; I'm just another user like you.

Hi,
We have videos that are 720p and want to encode to Blu-ray compatible MPEG for TAW4. I read below it is better to use bicubic in Picture Resize filter.

In Output format, we chose Blu-ray standard MPEG file.

1. But in the template configuration, do we choose 1280x720, 16:9, 23.976 fps (and not upscale the videos at all) or do we choose 1920x1080, 16:9, 29.97 fps (and upscale the videos to 1080p from original 720p) ?

Which would be the best setting the highest video quality?

2. Does upscaling video to 1080p from lower resolution help with image quality? Or do we also need to add filters or do something else to achieve the highest image quality? If so, can you let me know what else we need to do in Video Mastering Works 5?

Thank you

your better off just to leave it at 720p and let your Blu-ray player do the upscaling

Will TMPGEnc ever support Intel's Quicksync?
Thanks/

Good morning,

if your talking about the feature of the "Sandy Bridge" the reponse is Yes

BUT, YOU COULDN'T have ANY OTHER GRAPHIC CARD !!!! NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LUCID VIRTU
I have a i2600k with Lucid Virtu and a Geforce GTX560Ti and I couldn't use Intel QuickSync in Hardware

My mobo has the Virtu.
Intel Quicksync is at the processor.
I don't understand you.
I have the 2600K which has Intel Quicksync.

He's saying Quicksync is supported but not through Virtu.
You have to plug your monitor directly into the motherboard to use Quicksync, thus not using your Graphics card.

If you wan't to use hardware Quicksync you have to connect monitor to the motherbord. I don't testing this solution. I have on the motherbord a HDMI port and on my Monitor a DVI port

And how is then and MediaEspresso can see the QuickSync fine?

I have dual monitor setup at my Geforce and no VGA to Intel output.

Look, we don't know how or why one works and the other doesn't. All we know is that it doesn't work with Virtu.

I've already sent them an email about supporting Virtu so hopefully they will look into it.
For now, the only way is to plug into your motherboard if you want to use Quicksync. If you don't have video out on your motherboard, then you can't use hardware quicksync encoding.

Software that supports Virtu is limited, so I'm guessing special programming is required by Lucid, Pegasys, or both in order to add support to TMPGEnc software.

See supported software in this document:
http://www.lucidlogix.com/download/Virtu%20Release%20notes%20%201-2-106%20Aug%209%202011.pdf

If it will not be compatible with Virtu then it will be a huge miss as far as I concern. There are more than many Z68 motherboards like mine (Gigabyte ZX86XP-UD4).
My mobo has mini HDMI output thus an output.
But I have my main VGA at 2 monitors because I am editing with it.

At my laptop that has Optimus TMPGEnc can render using Intel SDK Hardware.
Isn't this the same thing?

If your talking about Nvidia Optimus technologie, you have the same problem. Your Laptop have a Nvidia graphic Card ( geforce G....) and a Intel "sandy bridge" (Intel i3/5/7)

>At my laptop that has Optimus TMPGEnc can render using Intel SDK Hardware.
>Isn't this the same thing?

The end result of Optimus and Virtu might be the same, but how they do it is probably very different. I highly doubt NVIDIA and Lucid are sharing their techniques with each other. So just because it works on one does not mean it will work on the other.

However, it's good to know that Intel hardware encoding works with Optimus.

It's not only working.
It's razor fast.
I haven't seen anything like that!

>If your talking about Nvidia Optimus technologie, you have the same problem. Your Laptop have a Nvidia graphic Card ( geforce G....) and a Intel "sandy bridge" (Intel i3/5/7)

What problem are you referring to Rafael?

It works great here!

does cuda help divx in any way. i am converting dvd to divx. how can i get cuda to speed the process?
What is the equivalent to divx 720x480 at 2500 as far as using a code with cuda?

CUDA can help with filtering, but not with the actual divx encoding.

If you want to completely use CUDA, then you'll have to output as MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and use the CUDA encoder instead of the x264 encoder.

As for an equivalent to divx 720x480 @ 2500, I don't know exactly. I would try a little less bitrate, maybe 2000 and see how it looks then increase or decrease based on that.