I gave it a quick try in Ulead VideoStudio 10+ and could put
a reasonable chunk ( a couple of hundred) of JPEGs on the
timelime at a time. 10,000 could require adding them in
chunks. I didn't try for a larger chunk, though so I don't
know if there is a max number you can do at a time.

The problem comes in with the still duration. I didn't find a
way to set the duration for a large number of images. Setting
each one of 10,000 could be a pain. Even setting the default
still duration in the options didn't seem to work.

Pinnacle Studio 9 will do what you want. Go to SetupEditTitles/Stills
and set the duration to .01 Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times as
necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio to
splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie. Because
you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in quality
up to this point. From there you can use any editing program you want
to create the final movie.

wrote in message ...

...Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times as
necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio to
splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie. Because
you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in quality
up to this point.

Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
DV?

G Hardy wrote:

wrote in message ...

...Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times as
necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio to
splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie. Because
you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in quality
up to this point.

Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
DV?

There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.
-Bill

wrote in message ...
G Hardy wrote:

wrote in message ...

...Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times
as
necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio
to
splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie. Because
you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in quality
up to this point.

Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
DV?

There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.
-Bill

DV-25 is at least a 5:1 compression of any image data being
encoded into it. The image sensor on a typical Mini-DV camera
supplies a frame image to be encoded into DV-25 that is a little
larger than 720x480 (NTSC). It is supplied as two interlaced
frames. 720x480=345,600 pixels

A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
comparable to per frame.

I'm afraid that DV will suffer compression losses and artifacts
if abused just like any digital format. It may take more abuse
and have smaller, more limited, impact, but there can be very
noticeable impact. And that is in relation to a more compressed
format, not an original image. It is always something less than
any original image data. DV-25 at 25Mbps won't/can't encode
all the image data of a quality still image.

Although it will cost disk space, uncompressed RGB AVI
would be the better format, until time to compress it for DVD
authoring. Even that will not be able to preserve all the image
data from a JPEG still of any reasonable size.

Luck;
Ken

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:06:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
wrote:


"Rock Troll" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:09:22 +0100, Terry Pinnell


I agree "if" a program can handle several functions easily and
reliably, my experience has been that they don't. Not saying they all
don't but my experience has shown me that when a program tries to do
everything it does nothing well.

I did try 1.6's burning tool last night and it worked easily and
reliably. I may try it some more. Thanks for the recommendation.

The Womble program was the version before MPEG Video Wizard, it might
have been mpegVCR. I haven't tried Video Wizard.

I've found that TDA's burning application works well with
my setup and NEC 2510A, so I also use it to burn DVDs.
In fact I also use it to burn Data DVDs, as it does the job
quickly with little fuss. I use Nero Burning ROM for any
tricky or unusual burning that may crop up, from time to
time.

snip

Luck;
Ken

Would like to thank Terry and Ken for the TDA burning recommendation.
I've been using it exclusively since these messages and have burned
about 15 DVD's. No problems and very reliable. It does make things
easier. I'm very happy with it. Thanks for the recommendation.

"Ken Maltby" wrote in message
...

wrote in message ...
G Hardy wrote:

wrote in message ...

...Drop a couple of hundred stills on the time
line and render as an DV quality AVI file. Repeat this as many times
as
necessary. Once all the stills are in movie form, you can use Studio
to
splice all the AVI files you created back into a single movie.
Because
you are working with DV quatilty AVI files, there is no loss in
quality
up to this point.

Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills
to
DV?

There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.
-Bill

DV-25 is at least a 5:1 compression of any image data being
encoded into it. The image sensor on a typical Mini-DV camera
supplies a frame image to be encoded into DV-25 that is a little
larger than 720x480 (NTSC). It is supplied as two interlaced
frames. 720x480=345,600 pixels

A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
comparable to per frame.


But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs

I'm afraid that DV will suffer compression losses and artifacts
if abused just like any digital format. It may take more abuse
and have smaller, more limited, impact, but there can be very
noticeable impact. And that is in relation to a more compressed
format, not an original image. It is always something less than
any original image data. DV-25 at 25Mbps won't/can't encode
all the image data of a quality still image.

Although it will cost disk space, uncompressed RGB AVI
would be the better format, until time to compress it for DVD
authoring. Even that will not be able to preserve all the image
data from a JPEG still of any reasonable size.

Luck;
Ken

wrote in message ...

snip
files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use.

mode=pedantic
There is no 'D8' format, perhaps you mean Digital8, quite
different!...
/mode

Huh? So what about the huge drop in quality when you render the stills to
DV?

There is absolutely no loss in quality when rendering to DV quality AVI
files. It is the same format that Mini DV and D8 camcorders use. You
can edit, write to DV and re-edit as many times as you want. You are
probably thinking of MPEG editing where the quality drops each time.

No, I'm thinking DV.

What you wrote, above, is a common misconception about DV. You're mistaken
if you think rendering to DV is lossless. Just because the initial
compression is done in the camera, it doesn't mean that the loss is not
happening. All that's happening when Peter turns his hundreds of JPEGs into
the DV AVI format you suggest is the DV compression is done by the computer,
not a camera.

It's not even appropriate to use MPEG as a comparison. My NLE software (so I
assume most) can work without loss on edited MPEGs as long as the project
settings match those of the MPEG source. There is the issue about rendering
if you don't make cuts on an I frame, but that's a tangent we don't really
need in this thread.

"Trev" trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM wrote in message
...

"Ken Maltby" wrote in message

A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
comparable to per frame.


But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs

That shouldn't really make any difference. A 640x480 image blown up to
720x576 and rendered as DV will still suffer a quality loss, compared to a
640x480 image blown up to 720x576 and rendered uncompressed.

Of course there's the issue of whether such a loss will be noticeable, even
if presented as a still rather than a frame within a video, but it's still
there. This branch of the thread started when Bill implied DV compression is
lossless.

With a still, you can notice per-frame DV artefacts on the first
recompression*, if you're searching for them. They are unacceptable by the
third recompression. I reckon that moving video allows you to get away with
another one or two recompressions, as it's harder to spot imperfections in
moving video.

* Recompressions done on computer, compression already done in camera

"G Hardy" wrote in message
news
"Trev" trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM wrote in message
...

"Ken Maltby" wrote in message

A still image can have several million pixels, that is per image,
comparable to per frame.


But in this case the user is using 640 x 480 jpegs

That shouldn't really make any difference. A 640x480 image blown up to
720x576 and rendered as DV will still suffer a quality loss, compared to a
640x480 image blown up to 720x576 and rendered uncompressed.

Of course there's the issue of whether such a loss will be noticeable,
even if presented as a still rather than a frame within a video, but it's
still there. This branch of the thread started when Bill implied DV
compression is lossless.

With a still, you can notice per-frame DV artefacts on the first
recompression*, if you're searching for them. They are unacceptable by the
third recompression. I reckon that moving video allows you to get away
with another one or two recompressions, as it's harder to spot
imperfections in moving video.

* Recompressions done on computer, compression already done in camera


I was providing a simplified explanation as to why the generalized
assertion the DV is totally lossless, is obviously wrong. I thought I
was cleverly pointing out the obvious, not trying to address the
details of this thread. I thought pointing out the difference in pixel
count, for more common quality Jpeg stills, would be an obvious
and simple way to show the error in the assertion.

There are a number of other factors that I could use to show the
fallacy of the assertion, but most are in the eyes glaze over category.
Even the question of using a lossy still image format like JPEG,
makes an absolute example hard without a mass of detail. (The
JPEG could be encoded to any quality level from 100% of a 24bit
RGB image to something much less.) And there is the issue of
subsampling. (And the "Q" number 0-100 doesn't mean what you
would think, Q 100 does not mean 100% in the sense of my
statement above.) And the effect of all this is greatly dependent on
the size of the image. Then there is "color quantization" and how
that relates to transcoding, which leads to "Bit Precision" and the
differences in video "color space formats", and it goes on and on.

Even Bits Per Pixel comparisons can be complicated. Baseline
JPEG stores images with 8 bits per color sample, in other words
24 bits per pixel for RGB images, 8 bits/pixel for grayscale, 32
bits/pixel for CMYK, etc. (Basically, the same as 4:4:4 sampling,
for the color part, anyway. The relation between color and luma
is even more eyes glaze over.)

DV-25's color sampling is 4:1:1. (While that fact alone should
end this, I guess I'll have to go on some more.)

On second thought I have better things to do.

Luck;
Ken