Clip looks different in every single editor/player? (Canon Vixia)

Hi guys,
I have a new camcorder and am trying to understand how things work...
I recorded a short clip and then realized it looks notably different in every app I play it back in, even if they're all set to 100% zoom. While it doesn't look incredibly different, it does look noticeably different, even though one might've thought it should look exactly the same.
The clip was made with a Canon Vixia HF R300, which is capable of Full HD, but the clip used the camera's lowest AVCHD setting of 1440x1080 ("LP" mode). It's a small MTS clip of 69.4 MB for 82 seconds of video.
In DivX Plus Player 9.0.2, it makes a very crisp clean display of 1440x1080 (measured) - but it is also clearly stretched vertically; circles are ovals and people are tall and thin. It's not ridiculously stretched, but it's unmistakable, side by side to an unstretched version. I can't find a place where DivX says what it thinks the clip's properties are.
Despite the stretching, DivX clearly gave the best-looking replay. Very crisp looking.
Premier Elements 11 says the clip's Properties are 1440x1080 with pixel aspect ratio 1.33, but at "100% mag" it actually plays as 1920x1080 (?!) and it looks grainy. But it's not stretched vertically.
In Windows Media Player 11.0, it is blown up to approx 1832x1039 even when set to video size 100%. It says the clip's properties are 1440x1088 with Aspect Ratio 1.76:1(?!). It is a little grainy, but not stretched looking.
RealPlayer 16.0.2.32 won't give clip info (it's grayed out, for some reason), but at size 100% it has the oddest thing - a very clear border (within the full-screened player) of 1440x1080, and then the video itself is playing within this border, letterbox style, at 1440 by ~808. (That's an aspect ratio of ~1.78.) This replay was not as crisp as DivX, but was probably better than the other two.
So, every single player actually plays the same clip differently. One stretches it vertically, another letterboxes it, and the other two blow it up much larger than its original 1440x1080 - even though I set every single app to 100% magnification.
What's going on here?
My theory is that perhaps the Canon used some funky way to achieve its lowest resolution AVCHD, and the various players don't know how to deal with it, and/or they have problematic / hidden / non-obvious defaults.
Possibly the camcorder actually made a 1440x808 clip, but in a 1440x1080 container. Look at how Real has an apparent aspect ratio of 1.78 - and that's what WMP says it was using, even though it didn't make sense given the dimensions. And, if DivX mistakenly stretched 1440x808 to 1440x1080... well, that's what DivX looked like.
Maybe both WMP and PE11 somehow converted it to 1920x1080... and in doing so, they did some things right, and others wrong. They correctly dropped the useless white space, if it's a 1440x808 in a 1440x1080 container. And correctly kept the proper 1.78 aspect ratio (the same as Full HD). But they incorrectly magnified it to 1920x1080.
Comments on the above... Does it sound like any of this could be possible? It's pretty amazing that a "simple setting" didn't translate to a SINGLE ONE of these popular video players/editors!
Thanks if you have the time to spare!!
Mike

Mike,
When you are dealing with 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9, that frame size is stretched to 1920 x 1080 for display after encoding. So its playback on a player is often dependent on how well or poorly or if at all the player recognizes and/or has problems reading the 16;9 flag. On the other hand 1920 x 1080 16:9 has no flag. It is what it is 1920 x 1080 16:9 square pixels.
I suggest that you go by the book with regard to Premiere Elements project preset matching the properties of your source media. So, if you import this 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9 into Premiere Elements, use the appropriate 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic 16:9 project preset. However, when it comes time for export, then use one of the 1920 x 1080 16:9 exports so that you will not have to depend on your player reading a 16:9 flag.
The results that you report regarding your camera's video in various players seems to confirm what I have just tried to say. Unless you have a special reason why not to, shoot at the highest quality settings your camera has to offer. That will be a 1920 x 1080 16:9 setting.
ATR

Similar Messages

Create DNG Profile - Why does it look different in the DNG Editor vs LR/ACR?

Hi everyone, I am sorry if this has been covered before -- perhaps you could give me a link to the relevant info.
I have a client who shoots with a Leica DMR. The reds are way to saturated and magenta. We created a new camera profile in the DNG editor using a color-checker chart, shot at D6500 and Tungsten. Looks great, and Lightroom recognizes it. The issue: when we look at a photograph in the DNG editor with this profile, it looks much better. When we look at the same photograph in LR/ACR with the profile selected, the reds are still too saturated and magenta (though way better than without our profile). Why would a photo look different in the two applications, with the same profile?
As shown in DNG Editor:
As shown in LR:
Thank you for any light you can shed on this.
Laura Shoe

Here is an additional comparison further highlighting the magenta issue (amongst others). Shot with Leica R9 w/DMR(firmware1.3) using Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 35-70mm at ISO 100, f/4.8, 1/60. Manual WB=4912K, no Exp Comp.
Here is screen shot of same DNG image. Un-altered in either app., no presets, no sharpening, or noise reduction. CaptureOne (v4.8.3) on the left, and LR2 (v2.6)
Here is what the above screen shot looks like thru CS3:
you must click on image to see CS3 rendering - browser is not accurate
Anyone no what's going on?
PS the images were shot just shy of perfect focus to test sharpening in both apps, same levels applied to both images (C1 on left, LR on right). Here are the results:

Why does my clip look different in Color vs FCP via External mmonitor

Can anyone explain why my clip look slightly different in color as opposed to FCP. This clip is exported from FCP sequence with NO filters whatsoever. I'm basically viewing the same clip and switching between color and FCP. The clip seems to have a tad more highlight when viewing in color
I'm using a MacPro/Kona3/Sony Multiformat CRT. Thanks

seems to have a tad more highlight when viewing in color
Do you see a difference in the scopes? "seems to" is not as good a description as we really need to sort out whether this is a gamma issue or a possible 601/709 conflict, even with your Multiformat Sony. There appear to be a lot of RGB, Y'CbCr conversions in your image pipeline.
I am aware that some codecs are handled slightly differently by Final Cut and COLOR. They do not use the same media decoding engine. COLOR's is much more basic (fundamental) and generally speaking is more accurate for that reason. Similar to SHAKE in that respect.
jPo

Why does my newly published website look different in every browser?

It looks closest to what I created when viewing in IE. Graphics are screwed up in Firefox, and colors are wrong in Safari. Also, my add to cart buttons work in Firefox and Safari but not in IE. Can anyone help??

You need to be aware of the limitations of the various browsers and make sure you use web-safe fonts and colors.....
http://www.iwebformusicians.com/WebMusic/FontsandColors.html
Do a Command A on all your pages in iWeb to make sure that objects/text boxes are not touching or overlapping.
Firefox has problems with displaying drop shadows/frames etc.
To get help with specific issues you would need to tell us the URL of our site.

When i try to upload a .mts file from my Sony camera to Premiere Pro CC it refuses to play the audio! Ofcourse i could convert every single clip but it takes tons of time. How can i make Pr play audio track properly?

When i try to upload a .mts file from my Sony camera to Premiere Pro CC it refuses to play the audio! Ofcourse i could convert every single clip but it takes tons of time. How can i make Pr play audio track properly?

Does it not play at all or cannot you get the audio in the timeline?
Did you copy the entire card to the hdd and then imported the file via the Media Browser?
Did you source patch the audio tracks?

Every single clip needs to be rendered suddenly

Hello, I am a photographer that has now been thrust into shooting a lot of video due to my 5dmkii. I have been converting my footage with mpeg streamclip to pro res 422 and then editing it in fcp with no problems. Suddenly, final cut is requiring me to render every single clip I drop into the timeline. I can't figure out what is going on for the life of me. Oh, I have a macbook pro with 6 gigs of RAM too so its not my computer (that I know of). Thanks for the help!

Hi there - we need more info than just your hardware.
When you say "no problems" in reference to how you were editing before, have you changed something since then? Camera? Files?
What are your sequence settings? If they do not match your clip settings, they will need to be rendered.
When you drop your clips in the timeline, does it ask to convert the sequence settings to match the clip settings? If it does, you should click "yes".
Are you sure you are conversion settings are correct?
Let's start with those.
pJ

Why do certain clips (photos), viewed in preview, on Adobe Premiere 11 look different on YouTube?

Hi folks,
I've posted, via Adobe Premiere 11, two different music videos on YouTube and on my Facebook page. The first one, "Back In The Day", looks the same on YouTube (and Facebook) as it did when I viewed it (previewed it) on Premiere 11. But the second video, "Wicked World", that I posted on those internet sites, has certain clips (photos) that look different than what's seen on Premiere 11.
With "Wicked World", it almost looks like certain Panned & Zoomed photos are bigger in size than what the YouTube screen can show?
I used Pan & Zoom on some photos in both videos. But maybe with "Wicked World", I always set the "Hold" times to zero (0) when using Pan & Zoom on some photos. Or could it have something to do with the Track Size on the "Wicked World" Premiere 11 video? BTW, I see that by right clicking in an empty part of the track, the Track Size choices come up as small, medium or large.
Or is it something about upload choices on YouTube? Two different friends helped me with uploads to YouTube for each video, so maybe the first one, "Back In The Day", looks OK because that friend chose proper upload choices?
If you have time, or the inclination to see the difference for yourself, you can go on YouTube and type in on the search bar, "Wicked World Bob Fuchs". You'll see both a head shot of me playing harmonica for one YouTube choice, and a painting of Van Gogh as another way to get to the "Wicked World" problem video, and the "Back In The Day" good video.
Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. Once I find out why "Wicked World" photos slide partly off the YouTube screen, I will delete it from YouTube and replace it with an issue free one.
I just want to learn what caused that, hopefully, so I can avoid that problem going forward.
Thanks!
Bob Fuchs
[email protected]

A.T.please note:
After sending you a previous email reply to your latest response, I am forwarding a new thought.
I just tried out something you had suggested. I think it may solve the issue I have with the panned & zoomed photos on my "Wicked World" video - the ones that look weird when I view the video on YouTube (and Facebook).
So, in case you also think the following may be the answer, I will now copy and paste relevant parts of my previous email, PLUS include my new thoughts - in order not to waste your valuable time looking into an answer I may already have.
Here goes:
The Premiere 11 Edit area monitor Magnification had already been set to "Fit".
In Edit Menu Preferences General, I already had a check mark on "Default Scale to Frame Size".
The properties of the first file (a Title screen) that I dragged into the Timeline are 1920 Horizontal, 1080 Vertical. But properties of subsequent photos, some of which I panned and zoomed, are mostly only around 648x599.
Upon viewing my "Wicked World" video carefully on YouTube, I see that what actually happens is that the box-like area where my video is shown (probably the same size of my Premiere 11 screen edit area?) is smaller than the YouTube's screen viewing area. That does not bother me. However, when the panned and zoomed photos occur, my smaller box area, within the YouTube screen, itself moves along with the panned & zoomed movement of the photos! That inner box moves slightly vertically, either up or down, and to lower right or left, depending on which direction the pan and zoom of each photo is going. And an empty border around the video area hangs there, within the YouTube viewing area.
So ... as you talked about, I tried something: I replaced an existing panned & zoomed photo (clip) in the Timeline with the same photo, and then I clicked on "Scale to Frame Size". The photo got bigger. I then did a new pan and zoom on it, and reduced the duration of how long that photo clip plays. Therefore, although the pan and zoom happens faster, it cues to the proper places in the music (audio) track. And I'm guessing that the larger "Scale to Frame Size" on that photo will now show properly in the YouTube viewing area, without the smaller inner box area moving too, along with the panned and zoomed photo?
I have only done this on one of my previously panned and zoomed photos in the video. But if you think this may solve the viewing issue on YouTube, that I described above, then I'll do the same with all the previously panned and zoomed photos in my video, and save it as a new version on Premiere 11.
I guess I'd then try and delete the existing "Wicked World" video from YouTube, and replace it with the new, hopefully issue-free version.
What do you think? Should I try this, and then replace the old one on YouTube?
Best Regards,Bob [email protected]

Why do my Organizer & Editor pages look different from those in books and the brochure that came?

Why do my Organizer and Editor screens look different from the ones in books and in the brochure that came with installation cd?

Which version of the photoshop elements are you using.
You can get the help files of the latest version of photoshop elements 11 from the following link:
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements.html
Thanks
Harshit yadav

Every single photo event has disappeared from my iphoto. it looks like i've never used it. where are they?

every single phot event has disappeared from my iphoto. it looks as if i've never used it. where did they go?

The All Images is a search of all images on the hard drive and would include those in the library. if you deleted all of the photos listined in the All Images that would include all of those in the library.
To check to see if you have any of your original photos in the library open the iPhoto Library package as shown in this screenshot:
Then open the Originals folder and check the subfolders to see if the image files are there or not.
DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE CONTENTS OF THE LIBRARY PACKAGE.
If the sub folders are empty you have trashed your library. If the files are there then you can start over with a new library and import just the Originals folder into it.
OT

When i import from my vidio camera into imovie the clips look tall and thin.tied different imports like full size or large but seem to make no difference everything seems to run ok including sound whats going on? the m

when i import from my video camera into imovie the clips look tall and thin. tried different imports like full size or large have imported both sd and hd but seem to make no difference everything seems to run ok including sound. whats going on?

Hi Brad,
when you use Streamclip to convert media, use the same name for the exported file (only with different extension). Then make a shell script calling
touch -r origFileName.mp2 newFileName.mov
This will copy the exact time and date from origFileName.mp2 to newFileName.mov
The script may look like this (save the file, give an exec permission to it and call it in the right directory):
#!/bin/bash
for i in `ls *.mp2`; do
NEWNAME=$(ls "$i" | sed -e 's/mp2/mov/')
touch -r $i $NEWNAME
done
You may need to adapt the extension names used (in the example above .mp2 is input file to get the date/time stamp from and .mov is the output file to stamp.
Have fun and cheers

Footage Looks Different in SpeedGrade and when rendered

Hello
I’m having some problems figuring out what my file actually look like.
Is there still a QuickTime bug that cause QuickTime to show a gamma-shifted or otherwise-screwy image?
5dMkII h.264 .mov file
The same file in QuickTime and VLC looks different. VLC version is darker and redder.
That file in SG looks even darker, and slightly redder.
Rendered out from SpeedGrade to ProRes422 (Automatic Color Adjustment switch on in SG) looks close to SpeedGrade display, but a few points redder and a touch darker.
Rendered out from SpeedGrade to ProRes422 (Automatic Color Adjustment switch off in SG) much lighter and paler than SpeedGrade display.
Same results with ProRes444.
Why do these look different?
Latest MacPro Tower
Latest OS X
64GB RAM
AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB
2x LaCie 321 monitors, calibrated with Spyder3 Elite
QuickTime Pro 7 or QuickTime Player bundled with OS
All files viewed on the same monitor
Thanks in advance for any help.

In general, it depends.
You can't be responsible for every other computer & user in the world ... even though at times they'll try and make you so. The best anyone can do is run a calibrated "shop" and know you're delivering good technical content. Test it on other calibrated systems, and over broadcast monitors if such are available somewhere you know. For clients with specific needs, TEST. Send a test over and have them check it ... for most TV use this is crucial. For say adds on movie theatre screens between shows, arrange to take a sample over before they "open" for the day and have it played on their equipment onto the screen ... see what it looks like, adjust & retest as necessary.
For web use ... that's a total crapshoot off the mark.Best you can do is again, see that your system is as accurately calibrated as you can. Set the preferences for video players on your machine to use your system's calibration rather than their internal, which will ALWAYS do something odd to the signals. But not only odd ... unpredictable computer to computer. If your system is fully calibrated, your work over the web will hopefully average out pretty decent.
For web-delivery clients, still ... do initial testing to see that they are happy with the results you give them. If on their computer they want it bluer, and ... you know that means it's gonna really be BLUE on many machines ... perhaps showing them on a laptop that it does look good as-is on another system or some sort of client education moment may need to happen. I've heard plenty of complaints that the client demanded someone deliver something too dark ... and then complained back at them because they got comments from others that the material was too dark. Love that, eh? Client demanded they change it darker even though told it would be too dark for most computers ... then groused at them that it was too dark. Right. Oh frabjous joy.
Over in the video lounge here and on a couple other sites ... the threads on Stupid Client Demands have at times been a riot and at times something to near cry over. As a 30+ year stills portrait photographer, we've had the same thing at times from clients ... a demand to just plain print their images GREEN or something. Most of which we've complied with, some we ... didn't. What an interesting variety of brains and eyes there are about the planet ...
My experience is that just doing the best I can, it looks pretty darn good on my client's tv's and computers. Some go one way or the other a bit, but in general, it works fine. And check if you've got a setting in either system controls or the Qt & VLC controls for system-managed color.
Neil

Colors in FCP looks different than when playing in QT7

The colors of the video's in FCP looks different than when playing back in QuickTime. I wonder if it can be a color management setting in FCP? I have the same problem when playing a clip in AE. I have two FCP machines, but only one of them is having this problem. Any ideas of what I can do to get the right colors back?

Have you enabled Final Cut Studio Color Compatibility in the QT Player preferences?

Templates look different in FCE HD than in LT

I'm starting to use templates in LT in a project I'm working on to jazz it up a little.
I use 2 LT stock templates, modify the the background colors, adjust some font sizes, add a drop shadow here & there, do a little extrusion on some of the LT fonts, and it looks great when I save and render it in LT.
I play back the LT render file in LT and it looks just like I want it.
After I import the render file into FCE HD (3.0), place it on the time line, render it, and then finally get to see what it looks like, some of the font colors are wrong and there appears to be some aliasing happening on the fonts themselves making the whole thing look second rate - not sharp and crisp like it was in LT.
Is it a no no to extrude fonts?
I also get aliasing on the stock non-animated fonts when I change their color. In one case from black to a dark green . In this case I also put a .5 px stroke around the font to help with contrast against the background.
Could the .5 px stroke be aliasing?
The dark green also comnes out looking grungy and frazzeled.
Any help would be appreciated. This has happend in several templates now.
Ken

I have never tried importing the .ifr file from LT because I want to see what it looks like before it goes to FCE.< </div>
You get used to estimating timing and anticipating your results with experience.
Tom said that basically it doesn't play well in the time line because it gets compressed by a factor of 5 when it goes to DV AND that even though I'm using a 19" Apple Studio Display, that the display is not showing it like it would play from a DVD to a TV. < </div>
Tom Wolsky knows all this stuff inside and out.
And interlacing gets in the way or something like that, and yeah I'm so newbee my wings are still tired just getting to this hive.< </div>
We were all new at this at one time or another. Welcome tot he family.
But this brings up another question. Since exporting the sequence to a QT self-contained movie and burning it on a DVD means that it gets even further compressed into mpeg, how is that the LT scenes actually display much better on a TV (which is way larger) than in the canvas? Is that where the interlacing thing comes in? < </div>
Umm, no.
I have never really understood why video has 2 images in one frame when film gets buy just fine with one. Can you point me in the right direction to learn about that?< </div>
Different universes of time. But when film gets transferred to vidoe, those single frames get interlaced and interleaved with a process known as 3-2 Pulldown. That will give you a headache because there are many different types of pulldown.
Anyhow, why buy a video monitor if it's all going to sort itself out in the bake and shake process going to DVD? < </div>
That's a stylistic question you will answer for yourself in a few months.
And if one really should have a "video monitor" are there any decent ones that aren't megabucks? My understanding is that it's going to look different on the TV any how, correct? < </div>
It's not that easy, TV and video are different, too.
So does this mean that when we create in LiveType, we are creating a NON-Interlaced image that looks so sharp & clear on the non-interalced computer screen? And that the interlacing gets put in during the rendering process in FCE? And that interlacing makes the LiveTyp image look like it's got ants in its pants (fuzzy)on the computer screen? < </div>
There's an option in your prject settings to use NONE, LOWER or UPPER fileds for your movie. Set it to LOWER. If you use NONE< you will get a progressive render.
<div class="jive-quote">Do I have it or do I have to go back to school?< </div>
It might help but we do that every day around here. Don't sweat the small stuff but, now that you have some fundamental grounding in video basics, you could benefit dramatically from reading the LT manual and doing the tutorials one more time. They'll make some sense this time around.
Bogiesan

The way Aperture renders my Nikon RAW (NEF) files look different than...

The was Aperture renders my NEF files looks different than NX...
Ok so I use all the in camera setting/tools to the best of abilities to try and cut my editing down as much as possible but when shooting RAW I end up having to tweak every images to get them back to what they really look like... I shoot often RAW and JPG combined and when I open a NEF in NX and a JPG in PS they are identical and need very little work, when I use Aperture the NEF files are very different looking from the JPG (or NEF in NX) and every single one needs tweaking (I get more redish/pinkish skin, often a hint of green cast to (slightly off WB/tone thing) and more contrast.
Below is screenshot showing the difference between a JPG (or NEF in NX) and a RAW file in Aperture
[img]http://www.pbase.com/ray645/image/120052970/original.jpg[/img]
This is just a silly snap shot in very flat overcast light, and has the least amount of shift or difference of any image type so far, when I use strobes, shoot for a more contrasty image, gel for color and manual WB the differences are huge almost to the point that you would think you where looking at two completely different images and not the same NEF opened in different software.
How do I go about getting Aperture to render my NEF's more like what I shot like NEF in NX, JPG in anything, and even the back of the camera screen?

Thank you, that seems like will work, just having the boost turned down a bit on import has helped tremendously but I cant stop feeling like I am moving towards the "Fix it in post" mentality
I will need to get better at tweaking my images... No matter how I try I cant kill the pinking skin or the very faint green glow in blond hair or bright neutral tones without affecting other areas of the image.. I am sure I will figure it out but anyone having any tips or links that could speed up my process I would appreciate it.
The green is weird its like someone snuck a small florescent light into all my shoots without telling me, not major but enough to be annoying.
I shoot a ton of motor sports (3000 images a weekend) and shoot JPG and have gotten good at using in camera pre sets, knowing what I got and getting it right in the camera, I wish Nikon would give up the code or whatever is needed for all the info to be carried over to Aperture..... I would pay the $100 or whatever to use the NX engine in Aperture

DV clips look bad, good when converted to H.264 in QuickTime and reimported

Still a problem after 7.0.1:
DV camera -> iMovie 08 -> looks bad when playing and exporting/sharing
DV camera -> iMovie 08 -> "reveal in finder" -> clip opened in QuickTime -> looks good -> export as H.264 -> re-import to iMovie 08 -> looks good when playing and exporting/sharing.
In plain words: Importing DV clips from my DV camera into iMovie gives bad results when playing and exporting/sharing. Have tried everything, but the clips look blurry and not sharp at all. The actual DV clip in the events folder looks sharp and clear.
If I take the very same DV clip from the events folder ("reveal in finder"), open it in QuickTime, export it as H.264 and then re-import to iMovie 08, it looks brilliant, retaining the quality the DV clip in the events folder has.
Why can't the DV clips look good in the first place? What is it that iMovie 08 does to these poor clips? Some have suggested re-encoding, re-rendering and so on, but if I do just that in QuickTime and re-import it to iMovie 08, it still looks razor sharp and crystal clear. No reason that iMovie 08 shouldn't handle the DV file in the same manner.
Some have suggested that this is because iMovie 08 internally re-encodes to AIM or H.264, enabling edits with different kinds of formats, but if I do this myself in QuickTime before importing to iMovie 08, the problem isn't there!
If this is difficult to achieve, why not add the option of importing from a DV camera as H.264 and not DV? That would make my day!
(I have posted this to Apple using the feedback menu item in iMovie 08.)
(Background here in these threads:)
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1088568
Sample clips in Apple TV format here:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5173005

iMovie '08 stores rendered projects in H.264 form. This happens when you render to the Media Browser. The rendered file(s) (you can have several different sizes) are in the iMovie '08 project package. The original flies in your Events folders stay in whatever format they were in.
Yes, the movies exported to the Media Browser use the H.264 format, the same as iMovie HD 5/6 did when we exported using the presets Email, Web, Web Streaming and CD-ROM. They were all H.264 too. Apple is obviously putting the (powerful) H.264 to good use to prepare movies for Web pages and other purposes.
As you know, the Full Quality export in 5/6 was to the project's native format, which varied according to the type of project. For DV projects, that was DV video. Everything was converted to DV when imported into the project, and to preserve the original quality we could export to a Full Quality DV movie.
There is nothing like that in iMovie 7, at least that I've seen. As you said, nothing is converted to a "native format" when imported to the project. (Still images are added to the project's single Apple Photo - JPEG "Still Images" movie, which is a nice twist.)
So I think of iMovie 7 as having no "native" format, but a nicely-designed path for using H.264 as the delivery format. The Media Browser — a virtual library of movies with no shared place — is a nice invention.
When I export slideshow movies in DV format out of FotoMagico I always select 'Best' and it DOES make a difference in iDVD.
I think of iMovie 7's problem with DV as more profoundly flawed. Exporting ANY DV video that's in the project to DV or ANY OTHER format is messed up. It's the handling of the DV inside iMovie that's messed up, not just the export to DV.
My guess is — and it's only a guess — that FotoMagico's Best setting adjusts the content of the image delivered for iDVD. Put another way, it prepares an image that works best with iDVD's own encoding algorithms.
One long-standing diappointment I've had with iLife is that Apple has never coordinated the image it prepares for iDVD with what(ever) iDVD does best. It's as if the programmers never talk to each other. iMovie engineers have never asked the iDVD engineers how best to deliver the image to deliver the best quality on the DVD.
Given Apple's emphasis on H.264, one would think that iDVD would be written to embrace any H.264 video and deliver great quality on the DVD. It doesn't. And with iLife '08 it doesn't even embrace iMovie's own DV exports!
I suppose Blu-Ray will change all that, but for now we're stuck with a version of iLife that can't deliver a quality DVD of our home movies.
Karl

Clip looks different in every single editor/player? (Canon Vixia)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for