Solved 1920*1080 AVC-HD - 60p into DVD compatable format!

Hi Derek,
On the topic I am asking about, I have read the tutorials and searched in the web - only to arrive at a confused state.
Simply put - I have rendered (finshed) projects in 1920*1080 (Sony) AVC- HD 60p format.
As previously mentioned - these have to now move onto a DVD. It will be viewed (played) on a modern plasma or LED TV (in the UK).
1. I understand that being in the UK is no problem for viewing NTSC format since the viewing equipment is modern.
2. I realise that DVD format is not 1920*1080 nor HD 60p.

To arrive at a correct format for the DVD, is it possible to remain in (render in) a progressive format?

If so, is 720*480 at 29.97p a correct format to use.

By reducing the fps - are artifacts likely to be introduced due to frame blending?

Also, the bit rate for the original material is marked as 21224kbs -

Will this rate need to be reduced (presume the answer will be yes for MPEGII) - if so, I have read that 80000kbs is advised - is this correct?

The questions come about since the infomation I have seen presumes that the original material is in interlaced format and moving from progressive to interlaced generates situations that I have no experience with - and depending upon your answers have no desire to enter into at the present time (still on a learning curve!
I wish to remain in progressive format if possible and the end result are of a correct DVD quality.
Many regards and thanks for entertaining my questions,

Peter

Hi Peter

I have moved your post into the DVD Architect Studio sub-forum.

I will start with a general comment.
Your video would look best if you actually created a Blu-ray Disc. Blu-ray was created specifically for the storage and playback of 1080i and 720p HD Video.
Blu-ray does allow 1280x720-60p.

All modern TVs, DVD and Blu-ray players, can play just about any type of video with no problems at all.

The DVD specification only supports the follow Widescreen Formats:
720x480-29.97i
720x576-25i
720x480-24p

Only 24p NTSC video can be encoded to progressive scan.

Your best option for converting 1920x1080-60p, is to use 720x480-29.97i. It is always best to work with even multiples of the original frame rate, if you want the least amount of problems. 50>25, 60>30, 48>24.
There is no reason why artefacts would be created, because all that is going to happen is every second frame will be dropped.
You may like to experiment with Sampling. It all depends on what you think looks best.
By default, Vegas does Smart Re-sampling. If your video looks too blurry when there is fast motion on the screen, try turning re-sampling off.
Right-click all video segments on the timeline and go to Switches - Disable Re-sample. You can select all your clips at once to apply this.

There is also another setting "Reduce Interlace Flicker". It should be OK left off, but just be aware of this if needed.

MPEG2 video for DVD has a maximum allowable bit rate of 9.5Mbps.
The default template already has this set correctly, so you don't need to change this yourself.

Regards
Derek.

Hi Derek,
Did wonder in which sub section in which to post - so thanks for the placing into the correct spot.

This forum is a god send for straight answers that correspond to the questions posed - thank you for the response that will now allow me to continue.
At novice level - questions need simple answers that allow for useful results. Once some experience is gained, it's more fun to then experiment knowing that the variants being investigated are not wasteful wanderings. The explanation of basics are too often lacking in clarity and intermixed with confusing departures from the original topic.
You do not make this type of mistake.

Shall let you know how things develop!

Many regards,

Peter

Hi Derek,
You were correct - compared to the original material, the MPEG2 DVD looks rough!
Have been through different variations and the end result is compratively pixellated (rendering onto a DVD-RW with short video section for tests - so render is quickly done and not wasting discs).

Relating to your original comments:
You suggest rendering to 720*480-29.97i
In your tutorial "How to Burn a DVD or Blu-ray Disc using Sony Movie Studio Platinum" - you suggest "720*480-60i 16:9 widescreen" - which if I understand is equivalent to 29fps
Why did you suggest the 29i rather than the 60i?
Is 29i not equivalent to 14.something fps?
The best DVD render that I have been able to obtain so far results from the following:
Open MS platinum ver 11
New project
DVD NTSC widescreen Video: 720x480, 29.970 fps interlaced.
Import HD 1280*720-60p video
Disable resample
Make movie
Select MPEG2 720*480-60i
Render!

If on the other hand one goes the following route:

Open MS platinum ver 11
New project
select DVD NTSC widescreen Video: 720x480, 29.970 fps interlaced.
Import HD 1280*720-60p video
Disable resample
but this time - click "Render as" rather than "Make Movie"
The option for DVD as above indicate 29fps! - rather than 60i
Now the 29fps if I understand is equal to 60i
So why does when selecting the option under "new project" (at the start of the process) come up with 29i

Confused - so am I!
Regards,

Peter

29.97i and 60i are exactly the same !
Whenever you see one or the other being mentioned, it is referring to the exact same thing.
It is just one of those things where people and companies use a different term to mean the same thing.
29.97i or 60i (interlaced video) means 30x even lines and 30x odd lines to create the illusion of one single frame.

Everything else is simple.
I have explained all the basics for rendering video suitable for DVD or Blu-ray in my tutorials.
www.moviestudiozen.com/free-tutorials/dvd-architect-studio-50

Hi Derek,
Having now read up on basic format facts, can understand why 29.97i and 59.94i are considered the same. Came to realise the difference between FPS meaning either FRAME per second or FIELDS per second! (Progressive and Interlaced). Got it!

Going back to the tutorial, the differing settings are now also understood and why they are selected.
The only thing that I needed to change was to take into account that my source video was -59.94p and not 29.97p as in the example you served.
Thanks for your patience and allowing me to bounce my confusions on to you for clarification.
Regards,

Peter