Nero Digital video codec

Author

G@M3FR3@K
Senior Moderator
Article posted 24 Dec 03 13:08

Nero Digital

 

After selecting the “Copy DVD to Nero Digital” option we see the screen below. In this screen we can select what we want to do with our DVD and which audio tracks and subtitles we want to keep or remove:

Let’s first take a look at the configuration of the Nero Recode software. When pressing the configure button we can the following options:

The options are all pretty selfexplaining and were all left at their default setting. After setting up the preferences it’s time to load our DVD movie. For our test we ripped a movie called “Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” using DVD Decrypter. The ripped files measured 7,61GB in size. After loading the DVD movie Nero Recode 2 first analyzes the files and their compression ration. After Nero has finished analyzing the video is shows information about the loaded files and we can add the titles we want to copy:

If the screen above reminds you of DVD Shrink then you are not far off because Ahead used the expertise of the author of DVD Shrink to incorporate into their own Recode software.

For our tests we only want to rip the first title of the movie which contains the main movie. We do not want a menu or any extra’s. In Nero Recode 2 we can now set-up which audio tracks we want to keep and which subtitles. The subtitles will be ripped from the DVD files and included into the .MP4 file as a seperate subtitle track. We can also select what the final size of the movie should be. For example, do we want it to fit on a normal 74 or 80 minute disc, on a DVD recordable disc (4,4GB) or do we want the .MP4 file to be of another size?

For our preview we want to compress the DVD movie onto one 80 minute CD-R disc. This means that the movie will be compressed to about a tenth of its original size and thus the Nero Digital codec really has to do some work. After we’ve set-up our movie it’s time to take a look at the some of the other option Nero Recode 2 has to offer us. First of all we have an option called “Lock Ratio” which locks the bitrate for the movie quality. We don’t want this since a variable bitrate will generally always give better results. Below the Lock Ration option we have an option called “Start/End” with which we can set the start and end frame of our movie. This option is handy when you, for example, want to cut off the end credits of the movie to save same room (bitrate) for the main movie. The next button we can see is the “Video” button. This allows us to deinterlace the video (if needed), crop it and/or resize it. Via a simple menu we can control all these options:

For our tests we left all the option on automatic which are the recommended settings. The last option we’re going to look at is called “Audio“. As you probably guessed this option lets us set the audio encoding properties. For our test the stereo mode will do. In the options menu we can also select the Nero digital audio profile:

We once again left these options at the recommended setting, automatic.

Profiles:

Before we continue to the actual encoding of our test movie we need to mention the profiles Nero Recode 2 uses. With Nero Recode 2 you can use profiles for both the movie title and Nero Digital. The Title Profile lets you control how Nero Recode 2 handles the video quality distribution, the menu’s, the audio tracks and the subtitles. We don’t need to change anything here since we’re only encoding the main movie already and the audio and subtitle tracks Nero Recode 2 chooses by default are the ones we wanted:

The Nero Digital profiles allow us to choose in what kind of situation the created disc will be used. We can choose from Maximum Definition (which gives you complete control over the video encoding options), Handheld, Portable, Home Theater and High Definition TV. For our situation we choose the “Home Theater” profile.

Continue reading on the next page where we take a look at Nero Digital in action!

14 Comments

ernstblaauw
Posts: 218
Posted on: 24 Dec 03 13:58
Very interesting article! I'm quite amazed that such a new codec as Nero Digital can compete and beat DivX and Xvid. I'm also looking forward to a test that also includes RealVideo 9 and Quicktime. Those codecs are also better than DivX.
damiandimitri
Posts: 3702
Posted on: 24 Dec 03 13:58
nice review gonna play with some settings. What i ask myself is, how popular will this became
Liggy
Posts: 7340
Posted on: 24 Dec 03 15:03
But I guess there will never be standalone players, which are capable of RealVideo or Quicktime.
valnar
Posts: 219
Posted on: 24 Dec 03 20:18
I have to disagree that your screenshots of Nero Recode look as good as DivX. Slightly blurry if you ask me. And of course, in the hands of somebody who uses VDub or GKnot, DivX should be even better.
kanuac
Posts: 19
Posted on: 25 Dec 03 16:35
A very badly chosen screenshots if you ask me. All very dark with faded backgrounds and the only one that has enough color levels has a different captured frame for the Nero codec. I think that with more adecuated captures the diferences between codecs would show easily. Not suspicious but i don't like it.
triadone
Posts: 5
Posted on: 28 Dec 03 07:46
I would agree with the comments about the screen shots. Would it really have been that difficult to pause and frame step to an exact time frame in the video and then take screen shots? I also have different results to speak of. I was initially excited about Recode2 and am still hopeful for it. I'm particularly excited about using AAC at 64kbps to give more headspace for the video! This review however did not bother to mention the Dr.Divx software which is very much as easy to use as Recode2, has auto clipping and resizing as well. Also, the author of the article failed to mention what standard of the Divx Pro codec was used. Was it standard, high definition or what? To compare on my own I encoded the movie , Bend It Like Beckham, with Recode 2 using its default settings to a, dual pass, 705MB file size. Mind you the bitrate was noted as higher than when I encoded the same movie with DrDivx, the difference being the audio. DrDivx was also encoded using dual-pass, and standrard high definition certification levels. DrDivx uses mp3 (I can't seem to get an answer as to whether it is the standard codec or the Pro version) and I encoded at 128kbps. Hence the video bitrate allocated for the Divx file was less than that for Recode2. DrDivx, in light of the additional audio bitrate, also resized the video to a smaller size to account for the video bitrate decrease. To accomodate this I resized the window to the size indicated for the Recode2 version. Even given these changes, lower overall video bitrate stretched to non-ideal frame size, The Divx file by in large showed less blockiness and even a more crisp picture. The Recode2 image in general looked softer and slightly foggy. So in case you haven't gotten my drift, I disagree with the results of the review. Given time I'd be willing to post my screen shots if anyone is interested. Lastly I do appreciate the reviewer taking a novices perspective in the review. I would be curious (and am intending to explore) the encoding fps and quality when the expert setting are all turned on. Yes Recode2 is drastically faster at encoding than the Dr/Divx codec but at what cost? I'm more than willing to set up Dr.Divx to encode at its highest quality settings, dual, and then nth pass if it means a better picture than a more speedy codec. I'm excited bout the possibility of DrDivx incorporating AAC into their software! I hope it happens! Ok ok, I'm done now.
DoMiN8ToR
Posts: 9305
Posted on: 28 Dec 03 15:09
Thank you very much for your feedback, it's much appreciated. We would be very intrested in your screenshots. You can put them online on our Nero Recode Forum. You can click the link at the end of review (slightly above the reactions). For your other questions, Dennis (the reviewer) will likely be better able to answer them.
edpaulw
Posts: 4
Posted on: 01 Feb 04 18:40
Dr. Divx didn't work for me. It took much too long to produce a file and titles were not positioned properly. I'm quite satisfied with the performance of Nero Digital.
guest
Posts: 15284
Posted on: 04 Aug 07 15:28
guest
Posts: 15284
Posted on: 23 Feb 08 22:37
We all definitely have our opinions about which codecs are superior, but I look at what devices these videos will play on. I am an avid media center user, along with an extender (my Xbox 360). I recently switched to Nero Digital H.264 since it is supported on my iPod and my Xbox (strange...both Microsoft and Apple...). I personally find Divx & Xvid to get a little blocky/choppy, but I don\\\'t think there\\\'s a big difference. I probably would not have even gone to H.264, but since Xbox\\\'s and ipods don\\\'t support Divx/Xvid, I felt it was time for a change. Besides, I find Nero Recode to be a simple program that will give me good quality videos with AC-3 audio - all in a neat package.
guest
Posts: 15284
Posted on: 30 Mar 08 21:33
My first mp4 video had audio only. Black screen. Looking on google shows this problem is quite common.
dmcf01
Posts: 2
Posted on: 18 Aug 08 14:26
I am currently comparing Xvid on AutoGK with H.264/AVC on Nero Encode 3 . I can't really comment on quality as I can't really see any difference due to the fact that AutoGK's default settings are better than most OS conversion software. However, I can say that to my surprise my comparison shows the exact opposite of Dennis' review. I have found AutoGK a lot faster at producing comparable results. I am not sure why but on my set-up Nero Recode's 3 2-pass to AVC takes almost 3 hrs whilst the same movie takes about 1 hr 40 min on AutoGK's 2-pass encoding to Xvid. I was very disappointed after all the hype about Nero Recode's two pass encoding speed and was hoping to use the the new H.264 codec to backup my movie collection. Coincidently, I also noticed that AutoGK's 1-pass Target Quality Encoding is far better and faster than Recode's 1-pass encoding and can render a high quality backup with a target quality setting of 60% in about 1 hr on my setup. (the down side is that you cannot specify target size, though, the average output size is between 900MB - 1300MB which is exactly what I need any way as I'm backing-up to my HD) I'm going to try other OS softwares SUPER and MeGui to see if they are any faster. I'll let you know how that goes. I'm using a Dual Core 2 CPU 2.00 GHZ with 4GB or Ram.
dmcf01
Posts: 2
Posted on: 18 Aug 08 14:55
sorry I actually meant tosya Nero's Recode took 4 hrs not 3 hrs.
guest
Posts: 15284
Posted on: 13 May 09 06:23
I have been editing digital media for 7 years, and I have tried free and paid4 software, and I disagree that Nero's is not the best BUT, it is for 2 reasons. First, Nero is patent holding on the AAC HE, and that increases the room left for video, and second, unless you plan on using DivX or XVid with Matroska format, you will always lose in comparison to size AND quality. Now, in all fairness, there have been some programs that can utilize one's hard/software better than others, therefore, rendering quicker, better results[pertaining to time], and given the right optimal settings, better video quality as well, but as should be expected, you will be granted certain limitations. Anybody looking for a time vs. quality outcome should definitely invest in Nero. You can't get more bang for your buck, not to mention they have been cutting edge technology [ORIGINAL] pioneers for around a decade. The German software engineers at Ahead definitely know what they're doing. IN ALL FAIRNESS, so do the Japanese....look into MediaEncoder...but not TMPGEnc. MediaEncoder is freeware with MANY options, more so than Nero as far as meticulous settings. People with experience know oerall, it is ALWAYS trial and error, until you find what works, and what is best. The best, by the way, will only be the best until something better comes around.

Post a comment

Hello guest,
default
To benefit from all extra features you need to log in or sign up.