Mpeg 1 Vs. Mpeg 2

[howdy94]

If I want to fit a ton on a dvd, lets say 5 or 6 hours, would I be better off using mpeg 1 or mpeg 2.

I would use 352 x 240 around 1800 kbs.

Thanks

[MOVIEGEEK]

The DVD standards allow MPEG-1(352x240 NTSC) but some authoring programs will auto.convert your video to MPEG-2 when creating a DVD.The best quality is when you don't convert the video because you won't gain anything going from MPEG-1->MPEG-2,only change the audio samplerate to 48khz.
Try DVDLab or TMPGEnc DVD Author.

[adam]

Well it depends on your source, as MovieGeek suggested, if you already have mpeg1 files you don't want to reencode them to mpeg2 just for the sake of having them in that format.

But assuming anything other than an mpeg1 source, I'd definitely convert to mpeg2 at 352x240. This way you can encode at 23.976fps which grants you a huge increase in quality over 29.97fps, which is what you are stuck with if you use mpeg1.

For your more compressible sources, I'd consider using 352x480. 1800kbits is a bit low for this res, but a compressible source should do nicely. You shouldn't have any problems mixing 352x240 and 352x480 material on one DVD either.

[Ejoc]

MPEG-2 VBR

[thayne]

I would go mpeg-2 at Half D1 (352X480)

Cut your audio down to 128kbps at 48Khz and use mpeg audio or ac3.

[j1d10t]

If you go with MPEG2, use 2 (or more) passes when encoding to MPEG 2 - you will be able to fit more per DVD.

[ZippyP.]

I would go mpeg-2 at Half D1 (352X480)

Cut your audio down to 128kbps at 48Khz and use mpeg audio or ac3.

352x480 mpeg2 using 2-pass VBR (TMPGEnc) at 1800 KBps avg. should be ok if the source is good.

128 Kbps sound is too low for me though.

[howdy94]

But assuming anything other than an mpeg1 source, I'd definitely convert to mpeg2 at 352x240. This way you can encode at 23.976fps which grants you a huge increase in quality over 29.97fps, which is what you are stuck with if you use mpeg1.

How does encoding at 23.976fps vs. 29.97fps increase the quality? I'm kinda new at this. I have not heard of that before.

[thayne]

I would go mpeg-2 at Half D1 (352X480)

Cut your audio down to 128kbps at 48Khz and use mpeg audio or ac3.

352x480 mpeg2 using 2-pass VBR (TMPGEnc) at 1800 KBps avg. should be ok if the source is good.

128 Kbps sound is too low for me though.

If you want to fit 6 hours on one disk you have to make cuts somewhere. The video will already be higly compressede, I would rather give up some audio and get a little video back myself.

[ZippyP.]

How does encoding at 23.976fps vs. 29.97fps increase the quality? I'm kinda new at this. I have not heard of that before.

23.976 has 25% less frames per second than 29.976. Fewer pictures means that the bits per frame is increased by 25% compared to a 29.97 film encoded at the same bitrate. More bits per frame = better quality. (Up to a certain point anyway.)

[ZippyP.]

If you want to fit 6 hours on one disk you have to make cuts somewhere.

Good point!

[adam]

Yes, NTSCfilm (23.976fps) has less frames per second, and thus you get more bits per frame, and of course you get the same frames output by the decoder at playback so it is literally a free ride.

This translates to a literal quality increase of at least 15-20% assuming your footage could benefit from more bitrate, which is going to be the case most of the time.

However, in my opinion this is only about half of the quality increase. Assuming you preserve the nature of the 23.976fps source, its going to be progressive by definition because its film (ntscfilm.) Progressive footage encodes so much better than interlaced footage. Its easier for the encoder to handle and it inherantly requires less bitrate. If you encode at 29.97fps you either encode interlaced and take a sometimes significant quality hit depending on your encoder of choice (some encoders encode interlaced material better than others) or you deinterlace which kills motion and results in a blurry picture.

Like I said before, encoding in ntscfilm is a free ride in all aspects, so its no wonder that virtually all commercial NTSC DVDs which originated as film are encoded at this framerate.

[Afterlife]

I am also trying to do the same thing, tho i dont want 6hrs lol, I need around 4hrs 30 mins.

Would encoding as MPEG-2 352x480 using 2-pass VBR at 1800 kbps avg be ok, probably going to use 192kbps audio AC3 @ 48000khz.
Im using TMPGenc to do the encoding, tho ive heard a lot about cce?
When doing a TMPGenc MPEG-2 the audio is in what format? IM thinking Mpeg-1 Layer 2 is AC3?

Are there any settings or anything im not including for when I do the encoding that I need to be made aware of


The source files are OGM files, which i decompressed to avi. So im converting from AVI to MPEG-2. Each AVI is around 500MB each, and im looking to get them as small as 330MB each in MPEG-2 format as that way i can fit my 13 files on a dvd 13x330 = 4290GB

Anyways appreciate any help anyone can offer

[lordsmurf]

I am also trying to do the same thing, tho i dont want 6hrs lol, I need around 4hrs 30 mins.

Would encoding as MPEG-2 352x480 using 2-pass VBR at 1800 kbps avg be ok, probably going to use 192kbps audio AC3 @ 48000khz.
Im using TMPGenc to do the encoding, tho ive heard a lot about cce?
When doing a TMPGenc MPEG-2 the audio is in what format? IM thinking Mpeg-1 Layer 2 is AC3?

Are there any settings or anything im not including for when I do the encoding that I need to be made aware of


The source files are OGM files, which i decompressed to avi. So im converting from AVI to MPEG-2. Each AVI is around 500MB each, and im looking to get them as small as 330MB each in MPEG-2 format as that way i can fit my 13 files on a dvd 13x330 = 4290GB

Anyways appreciate any help anyone can offer

In this case, I suggest the cheap-shot method:
Encode 352x480 4.0 VBR (min 0.0, avg 4.0, max 5.0).
Author the too-big folder to the HD.
Run through DVD2ONE to squeeze to perfect 4.3GB DVD.

I find anything encoded under 2.5MB 352x480 to be too squeezed.
This will have the same effect. Sort of.

This is just a bad situation to be in.
Why not split the contents onto more discs?

In any case, don't expect great results. You're squeezing too much.

Audio, whether 256k or 192k has almost no size difference.
AC3 is its own format, nothing to do with MPEG audio.

Good luck.

FYI: I never do more than 3.6 hours on a DVD. Using 2.6 MB/s VBR MPEG2 as encoded from ATI MMC. And audio is AC3 stereo 256k. Excellent results.

[SaSi]

Another reason to go to MPEG-2 (unless of course the video has already been converted to MPEG-1), would be the fact that MPEG-1 doesn't support interlaced video. If the source is interlaced, then MPEG-2 would be the obvious choice.

[Roderz]

@adam
re: 23.976fps for use on DVD.

Now I'm confused because TMPGEnc DVD Author will not accept a file of this frame rate (says it cannot be used for a standard dvd)
Am I missing something here?

[lordsmurf]

@adam
re: 23.976fps for use on DVD.

Now I'm confused because TMPGEnc DVD Author will not accept a file of this frame rate (says it cannot be used for a standard dvd)
Am I missing something here?

Does it have 29.97 3:2 playback ?

[adam]

Right, 23.976fps is only supported in the DVD standard if you add the 3:2 pulldown flags. You can do this while encoding in TMPGenc by enabling the 3:2 pulldown while playback option under Video/Encode Mode, or you can add the flags to the video stream after encoding by using pulldown.exe.