Thoughts on using AME to transcode Blu-Ray video...?

Question

My workflow for Blu-Ray and DVD from Premiere to Encore has had to change since the demise of the Dynamic Link (due to the lack of an Encore CC).
In many ways this has turned out to be a good thing.
My typical project is an opera performance captured on a high-end consumer camcorder (Sony HDR-CX550V) which records an AVCHD folder full of clips. I edit the project in Premiere, adding titles, chapter marks, dissolves etc. I have started to make two-camera projects as well.
I was distraught when I discovered that the link between Premiere and Encore no longer worked in Premiere CC, but soon discovered a great deal of power and flexibility in setting the file sizes by varying the target bit rate and making other changes (such as changing the default PCM sound to Dolby Digital which takes up a lot less space).
I have discovered a curious anomaly, though, with my Blu-Ray transfers. I understand that the preferred file for Encore to ingest as Blu-Ray would be the h.264 Blu-Ray but have discovered that it takes several hours to transcode...and once I'm done, Encore wants to transcode it all over again...another significant time period wasted. An opera such as MAGIC FLUTE, which the company played in 2 hours 51 minutes (without intermissions, etc.) took FIVE hours to transcode to h.264 Blu-Ray and then Encore listed it as a file to transcode (another 2 hours or so).
Along with the added time, the process requires so many multiple transcodes I can't imagine some quality is not lost.
I decided to experiment with the MPEG-2 Blu-Ray setting and found that while it made larger files (still controllable by setting the bit rate...it wants to choose 30 but since the CAMERA can't provide a file with more than 21, setting the target bit rate at 20 makes the video just about fit, with auudio set as Dolby Digital).
The encode time for the above file is just above 1 1/2 hours. Encore ultimately takes some time to index the file (maybe 20 minutes) but puts a "don't transcode" marker on it so no further transcode is done. However, it comes up with a message complaining that the metadata is corrupt and recommending that I delete the .XMPSES file (but will lose my chapter markings). I delete the file, re-import the .m2v file...the chapter markings come in just fine. Is there a reason AME has to make this .XMPSES file in a way that Encore has something to complain about?
Also...is there a reason AME can't output an h.264 file that doesn't have to be re-processed by Encore? I understand .m4v is more advanced and efficient...but if creating one is such a more difficult, time-consuming process and I get a more-than-acceptable result with the .m2v Blu-Ray file, is there any logical reason why I should still consider the "preferred" h.264 encoding?

Answer 1

I wasn't aware that Encore did this automatically.
What I DO know is that with the new workflow eliminating the Dynamic Link I have the responsibility to do my own bit budgeting, and the ability to make choices in the export process to maximize the quality of my output.
I have a customer base that I can best describe as "cheap"! I recommend they buy a Blu-Ray player or computer disc reader. Even with their flat-screen TVs, they still opt for DVD.
I make recordings of opera performances for the benefit of the opera company (small amateur and semi-pro companies in New York City) and the performers. They balk at the idea that, say, THE MAGIC FLUTE, which weighs in at 2 hours 50 minutes on average, needs to be delivered on 2 DVDs for maximum quality (and I'm going to bill an extra $5 over the cost of a single DVD). So, real estate on these discs is extremely tight. I don't use dual-layer because I find them neither reliable nor cost-effective; in my experience they take forever to burn, the error rate is through the roof and they cost significantly more than single-layer.
SO I accommodate by lowering the bit rate.
In Premiere (or later in AME) I choose my favorite preset (NTSC DV Wide Progressive). The timeline comes in at a whopping 7928 MB, far in excess of the 4.7GB allowed on a single layer DVD. By the single act of changing the audio manually from PCM to Dolby Digital, the amount magically descends to 6,333. Now we change the bit rate from 5 to 3.5 MBPS. The proposed project size goes to 4,503, and I'll take the risk of doing an image at that rate (although sometimes I get burned by having the project exceed disc capacity and have to go back and do it again, since the numbers displayed as proposed project size are predictions/good-faith estimates AND there are other elements that have to go on the disc; since the transcode only takes about 45 minutes now, that's not a big deal). Yes, that's going to make a blurrier image than 5MBPS. My customers seem to prefer that to buying a Blu-Ray disc player for $79.95 at Best Buy and paying me an extra $5 for the Blu-Ray edition. Perhaps that's explainable by the fact that a previous videographer in one of these companies made the videos by recording the show in VHS and playing the VHS tapes into a VHS to DVD recorder ("Progress! We now have DVD!") I can assure that I get a better result than THAT.
The point: probably Encore would have transcoded the WAV file for me into AC3. It also would have freed up a bunch of space in doing so...and that space would be wasted since I didn't account for it in the bit budgeting process. Thus, in order to ensure the best video quality possible (i.e. the largest possible size video file in relation to the audio on the disc), it's necessary to mandate Dolby Digital/AC3 at the point of setting up the export. Allowing Encore to do it ensures a large blank area of disc space and if the project is more than a certain size, an unnecessary sacrifice in quality.
Jay