[Paul Perry]

Hmmm, hadn’t actually done this since I was really trying to either extract video clips or make an image file of the disc.

So, I thinks – yer this should be easy enough but will try it anyway. Low and behold when just doing a simple copy and paste Windows refuses to copy one of the VOB files saying “data error (cyclic redundancy check)”! And going by how one of my extraction applications was showing error notices, I recon many if not most/all of the other VOB files would show the same error.

So, it won’t even do a simple copy. But, but,, the disc still PLAYS ok!???

Paul Perry
Videographer, film, video, photos and sound restoration.
http://www.aureola.com.au

[Paul Perry]

Gentlemen, my apologises for not responding sooner to your comments as above – work, life and everything gets in the way.

Also, I wanted to do a little bit more investigating before coming back to you all. I have reconfirmed the problem I mention above re not being able to copy the 2 disc set. I also remembered I have another 2 disc set from the same source of a concert produced 1 year later the “difficult” disc set. I have now checked that later set and find I can copy those discs quite easily.

One is left to wonder. I am quite sure there is nothing else I am doing which would prevent making a copy (though I have learnt the hard way to be humble and not to be adamant about my conclusions). So it remains I guess to be either a case of a quirky digital/computer situation (not the first time), or some deliberate copy “protection” method along the lines of the Rimage system mentioned by Matt. Unless I can actually interogate the contents of the discs at a very low level I may never know.

But if this is the case one wonders whether the producers have changed their duplication methods in the mean time. Perhaps they received too many complaints about difficult playback?

Eric. Yes there is a video TS folder on the disc and the contents of that folder do generally look to be correct for a video DVD. If it had not been finalised though I would expect it would not be possible to play it on a “normal” disc player.

Noah. Somehow I do not think the producers would appreciate that sort of enquiry! Of course I do respect their copyright claims as such, just that I like to be able to make a backup copy in my archive system. A reasonable thought it seems to me, but they may not think so.

Paul Perry
Videographer, film, video, photos and sound restoration.
http://www.aureola.com.au

[Paul Perry]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner Peter. But it really wasn’t fair of me to post such a half baked question about the deinterlacer without something to back it up. So I have been and done some decent testing to satisfy me just what is happening. This was all done on a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz machine.

I am not too familiar yet with the deinterlacer settings and what they do. So here is my best bet. I set up some short clips on a Premier timeline. One a 6 min clip that I applied the deinterlacer to as below. plus a 1 min clip left alone as a control. This without any effects applied burnt to a DVD in 12 mins.

With the deinterlacer applied (to the first 6 mins) with the min settings suggested, Timing Mode 1 frame per frame, Fill Method none, Detect Motion none, Smooth Vertical and Sharpen 0.0. It took 43 mins to burn to a DVD. With settings of Timing Mode 1 frame per frame, Fill Method blend, Detect Motion 3 frames, Detect Method large area, Smooth Vertical and Sharpen 0.0. It took 84 mins to burn to a DVD. All the above being after rendering the timeline. (I didn’t record those times.)

I applied the later settings above to a 6 min clip by itself and it took 80 mins to render the effect on the timeline and another 78 mins to render that out as a Movie export to an AVI file. Just as a check, when that file was then placed on another timeline and burnt to a DVD it took 10 mins.

Now here is the interesting part. I wanted to also trial the deinterlacer in After Effects to see which might be the better workflow. A similar clip was set up in AE with the same (later) settings above and set to render to a Microsoft AVI file in the same PAL 25 fps of the original. It rendered in a total of 37 mins, played very well on my test hardware DVD player and CRT TV and when I placed that on a Premier timeline as a final test it burnt to a DVD in 10 mins.

I have had no real problems with Premier as used here, being very well behaved otherwise. The only possible problem is that the clips I used all came from a section of captured video which has a strange problem (I am assuming) with field order that is only corrected by deinterlacing. Hence the exercise. But maybe none of this has any bearing on the above times at all.

I would be very interested in your comments on these tests and my question to you would be whether in fact After Effects is a more powerful and effective engine to use for this type of processing. It certainly was faster.

[Paul Perry]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner Peter. But it really wasn’t fair of me to post such a half baked question about the deinterlacer without something to back it up. So I have been and done some decent testing to satisfy me just what is happening. This was all done on a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz machine.

I am not too familiar yet with the deinterlacer settings and what they do. So here is my best bet. I set up some short clips on a Premier timeline. One a 6 min clip that I applied the deinterlacer to as below. plus a 1 min clip left alone as a control. This without any effects applied burnt to a DVD in 12 mins.

With the deinterlacer applied (to the first 6 mins) with the min settings suggested, Timing Mode 1 frame per frame, Fill Method none, Detect Motion none, Smooth Vertical and Sharpen 0.0. It took 43 mins to burn to a DVD. With settings of Timing Mode 1 frame per frame, Fill Method blend, Detect Motion 3 frames, Detect Method large area, Smooth Vertical and Sharpen 0.0. It took 84 mins to burn to a DVD. All the above being after rendering the timeline. (I didn’t record those times.)

I applied the later settings above to a 6 min clip by itself and it took 80 mins to render the effect on the timeline and another 78 mins to render that out as a Movie export to an AVI file. Just as a check, when that file was then placed on another timeline and burnt to a DVD it took 10 mins.

Now here is the interesting part. I wanted to also trial the deinterlacer in After Effects to see which might be the better workflow. A similar clip was set up in AE with the same (later) settings above and set to render to a Microsoft AVI file in the same PAL 25 fps of the original. It rendered in a total of 37 mins, played very well on my test hardware DVD player and CRT TV and when I placed that on a Premier timeline as a final test it burnt to a DVD in 10 mins.

I have had no real problems with Premier as used here, being very well behaved otherwise. The only possible problem is that the clips I used all came from a section of captured video which has a strange problem (I am assuming) with field order that is only corrected by deinterlacing. Hence the exercise. But maybe none of this has any bearing on the above times at all.

I would be very interested in your comments on these tests and my question to you would be whether in fact After Effects is a more powerful and effective engine to use for this type of processing. It certainly was faster.