[Ed Dooley]

If someone’s asking for the most universally accepted file, they want an MPEG-1,
which will play on anything. It’s not the best looking file though, especially at low
bit rates. If you know what the target machine and OS is, try to give them the best that
will play for them. We often give cllient approvals in both WM9 (although some corporate clients don’t have
WM9 on their PCs yet) and QT (the MPEG4 version unless we know they have QT7, then we give them H.264 QTs).
With batch compressing it’s almost as easy to give 3 versions as one. Give them options, from the
highest quality down to the most universal, WM9, QT H.264 or MPEG-4, and MPEG-1. Flash is another option,
but you still have to think about their player. They need Flash 8 to play the higher quality ON2VP6 flash codec,
otherwise it’s not worth using Flash for anything of quality.
Ed

[Ed Dooley]

Don’t know a lot about DVCProHD (Walter’s the resident genius on that), but the simple
answers are:
DVCProHD records to tape at 960×720, the deck plays it out at 1280×720. Apps see it as
1280×720. I think you’re on to something with the aspect ratio setting in AE. As an anamorphed
file, 1.33 would be the ratio to see it properly in AE.
Ed

[Ed Dooley]

Don’t you have QT Pro? It’s one of the codecs in QT. And you’re on the FCP forum. FCP
supports HDV 1080i 60. It would help to clarify why you don’t have this on your machine,
when it’s available in the 2 apps a FCP user might use the most. Matrox has one too, but
this is the FCP forum. 🙂
Ed

[Ed Dooley]

You caught me on a day that I’m just a little grumpier than usual. 🙂 But having said that, why would
you ask people to spend any time answering a question that’s right in front of you, either in the
paper manual or right there behind the Help button. You get a faster answer and you’re not wasting peoples’ time. It’s simple consideration. RTFM has been around for a long time and was created for questions exactly like yours, ones that can be answered by opening your manual.
Don’t let my rant dissuade you from posting questions to the COW, but look at your immediate resources first please.
Ed (end of pet-peeve rant)

[Logan5] “WOW. Sorry I looked to this forum of “professionals” for assistance. I won’t let it happen again.”

[Ed Dooley]

The easiest way is to search the posts in this forum first. This is a very common, basic, beginner’s question
that has been answered at least a hundred times. Here’s a clue (actually it’s the answer): vertical blur.
Your search will give you *all* the details (many times).
Ed (just a bit grumpy today)

[tizzy1] “is there another way to handle this?”

[Ed Dooley]

Or do something really daring and unusual, RTFM! It’s all there, the square vs rectangular pixel thing,
and all the advice about what to do.
Ed

[Ed Dooley]

I wasn’t thinking of inexpensive hardware encoders. I was referring to Sonic’s Scenarist and CineVision.
And I guess it’s more accurate to say the software/hardware/authoring/encoding combination is what gives you better control.
Ed

[Charles Simonson] “While I agree that having a film-based source is almost assuredly going to give you a better encode than any video camera ever could, to say that hardware encoders are better is false. Really, a hardware encoder’s only advantage today is the ability to encode in real-time from SDI. There are quite a few software encoders out there today that can match the best quality from hardware encoders otherw”

[Ed Dooley]

There are a lot of variables. If you start with a high resolution film, then all other things equal, you’ll
wind up with a better looking SD DVD than from a video project. There are very expensive hardware-based encoders
that will do a much better job than software encoders. Even within the parameters of a video project, there’s HD
down to mini-DV (guess which DVD will look better?). Having said that, there are all kinds of tweaks with the GOP
structure, levels, dissolve compression markers, etc. that will give you a much better look than pushing a couple
of pre-set buttons. And finally, many people think (as do I) that other programs, like BitVice for example (Main Concept is another), do a better
job than Compressor. You’ll get better looking DVDs, even with Compressor, if you play around and test different settings.
Ed

[Ed Dooley]

But first! Duplicate the Dolby Preset so you can change a couple of things for better audio. After duplicating it, open the dup by double
clicking on it. It will open in Inspector. At the bottom of the Audio Tab in the Encoder section, change the Dialog Normalization from -27
to -31. Also make sure the Data Rate is 160 or 192 at the highest (it won’t sound any better if it’s higher).
Then at the top of the Preprocessing Tabbed window, change the Compression Preset from Film Standard Compression to None.
These new settings will optimize your audio. Save that new Preset to use for all your DVDs.
Ed

[Jeff Carpenter] “Now drag that QT movie into compressor again and put the DOLBY 2.0 setting onto it and compress it.”

[Ed Dooley]

As previously suggested, RTFM. Google: Photoshop Batch Actions, and you’ll find dozens of tutorials.
All the photos go in a folder and you do the action on one of them Blur, Save, Close. Then go to File,
Automate, Batch.
Ed