MPEG-1 @ 720x486 - Possible??

[MNale]

I capture video from a Sony DigiBeta via SDI with a Targa 2000 DDR card (WinNT4.0/SP 6.0a-Premiere 5.1c). This results in a uncompressed 4:2:2 component Quicktime .mov @ 720x486. I have tried to encode the video (CCE-SP, LSX) at this resolution to MPEG-1 and I get what looks like interlacing artifacts (when played on a computer monitor) even though I have de-interlacing selected in Premiere 5.1c. When I go down to 320x240, it looks fine, but I love the look of the video at it's captured resolution of 720x486. I have tried same settings with MPEG-2 with same horizontal jagginess in areas of high motion. Am I asking MPEG-1 to do the impossible? What is the largest resolution I can expect with MPEG-1? Thanks for any input.

[chano]

No, you can't encode at 720x486 because MPEG only support multiples of 16. 486/16=30.375 .
MPEG support up to 4096x4096.

[Greg12]

Now 480 is a mulitple of 16.

Use 720x480.

Since it's DVD resoultion, u have a chance of it playing.

[kwag]

Use TMPG Encoder ( version 2.02 ) and set the following:

Use 720X480 resolution
Manual VBR (MVBR) to Maximum bitrate 2000 and Minimum to 0
Set VBV Buffer to 48
Motion estimate search (fast)

Under the System tab set to MPEG-1 VideoCD (non-standard)

This will give you an average of 55 minutes of video on a 80 minute cd.

This works for me perfectly on the following players:

Panasonic DVD-RP56
Panasonic DMR-E20 DVD-R/DVD-RAM Recorder
Panasonic portable DVD player DVD-L10
Pioneer DVD-333
JVC DVD XV-F80BK 7 disk changer/player

Enjoy,
kwag

[Douglesh]

just as a side note, i have tried making SVCD's from extremely high quality sources, at 720x480 & 480x480

720x480 is marginally sharper, with more noise, larger file size, and longer encoding times

480x480 is only slightly less sharp, less block noise (than 720x380), and less encoding times too.

So try using 480x480.

[kwag]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-25 22:19:01, Douglesh wrote:
just as a side note, i have tried making SVCD's from extremely high quality sources, at 720x480 & 480x480

720x480 is marginally sharper, with more noise, larger file size, and longer encoding times

480x480 is only slightly less sharp, less block noise (than 720x380), and less encoding times too.

So try using 480x480.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

If you are going to make a 720X480, be sure to make a XVCD MPEG-1, and not an SVCD.

MPEG-1's quality is much better than MPEG-2 at lower bit rates. SVCD is MPEG-2, and that is why it shows more noise/blocks.

[kinneera]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
If you are going to make a 720X480, be sure to make a XVCD MPEG-1, and not an SVCD.

MPEG-1's quality is much better than MPEG-2 at lower bit rates. SVCD is MPEG-2, and that is why it shows more noise/blocks.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

A total myth...try actually reading the tech. specs on MPEG2 sometime.

[kwag]

[quote]
On 2001-12-25 23:00:16, kinneera wrote:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>

A total myth...try actually reading the tech. specs on MPEG2 sometime.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Here we go again!.

Why don't you do a couple of clips. One MPEG-1 at 2000Mbps, and another MPEG-2 also at 2000Mbps. From the same source, of course.

MPEG-2 specs provide for more features than MPEG-1, NOT for quality. Read the specs again.

This has been already discussed over the forums many times.

Read Sefy's comments on his templates too. There you will see his comments about MPEG-1's quality over MPEG-2 at lower bit rates.

It's a fact that MPEG-1's quality below 2000-3000Mbps is far higher/stable than MPEG-2 at that bit rate.

And I am not making this up.

[Kdiddy]

Kinneera: Man dont even waste your time, you trying to debate with someone who swears mpeg1 @ 720x480 <2mbps is "close, near, equal to DVD quality......o, except for that blurring during the high motion scenes" LOL

[kinneera]

I've done a number of MPEG1 and MPEG2 clips at the same specs, and there was no discernable difference. And it seems you are making it up, or at the very least you've never bothered to read the discussion of MPEG compression released by one of the contributors to the standard...I recall discussing this in another thread.

While I respect Sefy, he does not make SVCDs because of a self-admitted lack of interest in investing the time required to do it properly, which is perfectly fine. Nonetheless, it does not make him a particularly good source upon which to base opinions in this matter.

The bottom line is that the fundamental compression empoyed by both MPEG1 and MPEG2 is identical. I'm sorry if your encoding techniques aren't up to par when it comes to MPEG2, for whatever reason, but how about let people new to the hobby decide for themselves whether one or the other is better rather than making unnecessary blanket statements that are clearly contradicted by published information about the technologies involved. Sheesh.

[kinneera]

BTW - I have on occasion made SVCDs at 720x480 because it does provide a noticeable clarity advantage (I compared on my TV). However, I only do this for very short movies and ones that have very little or no fast motion.

[Sefy]

When quoting me, atleast quote all of it kinneera
I don't like doing SVCD's for all these reasons:
1) a decent quality would be 3 CD's atleast
2) takes too long to make
3) requires ALOT of tweaking to actually make it look decent
4) compatibility of SVCD is much lower then VCD
5) requires special software for the PC
6) requires a strong PC to play it

[MNale]

Thanks for your replies...

1. As best I can tell, MPEG-1 requires a HORIZONTAL resolution as a multiple of 16, thus 720x486 (my capture resolution) is perfectly legal. Since I can encode at this resolution in both CCE and LSX, this would bear me out.

2. Tmpg will not work with a .mov (Quicktime) component video file, so that is out of the question.

3. I need to encode MPEG-1 since I want this playable on Macs as well as PCs. Since Quicktime does not support MPEG-2 at this time, I need to proceed with MPEG-1.

Any other encoders I should try? Perhaps Discreet's Media Cleaner 5.1? If I put a copy of my 720x486 up on my ftp, would anyone be able to tell me how to get rid of the jaggy artifacts around the motion areas or is this just what I should expect from video compression?

Thanks again for all your suggestions and help!

[asnamlar]

Hi kwag, and what about the audio rate for the clip?

[kwag]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-26 09:12:14, asnamlar wrote:
Hi kwag, and what about the audio rate for the clip?

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Hi asnamlar:

The audio is standard 44100 stereo 224Kbps.
I'll E-Mail you the template now. Check your mail.

Let me just make a note here. What I do at 720X480, I do on a P4 1.6GHZ and a 2 hour movie takes close to 8 hours with XMPEG->FrameServer->TMPGEncoder.

I tried this once on a P3 @1GHZ and the estimated time was over 24 hours!. This is because or the resolution being frameserved.

TO kdiddy: ( Who always has some kind of funny negative comment! )

For your information, and my satisfaction , I went to Sears Brand Central the other day to buy a new DVD Player, and I took one of my custom XVCD's @ 720X480_VBR_2000bps and played it on the store's main DVD player ( a Panasonic RP56 )that is connected to 7 wide-screen Panasonic, Magnavox, etc. tv's. to try several brands to see which DVD player would play my XVCD.

Everyone was MOUTH WIDE OPEN when I told them it was a VCD.
They thought it was a DVD!.

Of course I didn't tell them more details ( for obvious reasons ).

- End of comment for kdiddy -

To sefy ( Oh hear me Sefy !! ) :

Hi sefy. Could you explain to kdiddy why MPEG-1 is better quality than MPEG-2 at bitrates below 3000 so that he doesn't bitch anymore?.

I tried but I guess he doesn't like to experiment and make some real clips to prove the concept.
And this has been documented in many articles in the past!.
I can't recall where now, but this is the case.

Thanks,

Merry Christmas to all!.

[kwag]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-26 09:12:14, asnamlar wrote:
Hi kwag, and what about the audio rate for the clip?

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Couldn't E-Mail you. You don't have an E-Mail address registered.

Sorry!.

[Kdiddy]

LOL

"I went to Sears Brand Central "

I manage a security department of a Sears for 6 years, so I can tell you Brand Central guys are just above rocks when it comes to how much they know about the technology they push. Real bad example, nice try though....

"Of course I didn't tell them more details "

O I C, you left out he part about "the blurring scenes during the high/fast motion sequences", so you didnt tell them whole story about the fallacies of what you were portraying.

"Hi sefy. Could you explain to kdiddy why MPEG-1 is better quality than MPEG-2 at bitrates below 3000 so that he doesn't bitch anymore?. "

ROFL, even funnier..remember this "care to up the bitrate even more?"....well I see that you have..first you started at 1.7 mbps, then 2mbps, now you are up to 3mbps, LOL, pretty soon you will be at DVD bitrate of 5 mbps, and then I will agree you have DVD quality, until then, keeping up the bitrate,LOL...dude you really dont know what kind of a fool you are making yourself out to be....again, no Sefy can't explain that, just like he did not back up what you stated it the other time, because its not the truth....BTW, did you even look at any of Sefy's templates, I dont recall seeing 720x480 resolution in any of them, so stop trying tarnish his reputation with the crap you are pushing.....Why dont YOU try, and while you are at, since mpeg2 performs so much worse than mpeg1, explain why then SVCD standard is MPEG2 @ 2.6 mbps 480x480???...


"I tried but I guess he doesn't like to experiment and make some real clips to prove the concept."

Why experiment on something I know the results....

"And this has been documented in many articles in the past!.
I can't recall where now, but this is the case. "

How convienent, you say you have proof, but don't know where the proof is....LOL, btw, I have a million dollars in the bank, now if I can only find that d@mn bank!.

[JHebert]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
MNale wrote:

I capture video from a Sony DigiBeta via SDI with a Targa 2000 DDR card (WinNT4.0/SP 6.0a-Premiere 5.1c). This results in a uncompressed 4:2:2 component Quicktime .mov @ 720x486.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Are these really uncompressed and not some type of MJPEG compression? I thought that uncompressed video would create huge files in the range of 25MB/second.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
MNale wrote:

2. Tmpg will not work with a .mov (Quicktime) component video file, so that is out of the question.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
There is a QuickTime plugin for TMPGEnc that might work to enable opening of your MOV files. You can find it in the Tools section on this site.
If that doesn't work you could try exporting as an AVI from Premiere, or convert to AVI in QuickTime Pro. Then use the AVI as your source in TMPGEnc or other MPEG encoder program.

[kwag]

To all, to prove that kdiddy doesn't know what he is saying, and to help everyone understand the concept.

Here are some links to what I mean about MPEG-1 IS better than MPEG-2 below 2000 to 3000bps. And to prove that #$%@! like kdiddy should be banned from forums like, because they dont know better and don't help the knowledge of people here that are trying to learn.

These forums are created to share knowledge and ideas and NOT to put off people by forcing "fanatic" ideas like kdidy's who cant accept realities.


(1)
VII. What's the difference between MPEG1 and MPEG2?
Standardized in 1992, MPEG1 was intended for VHS-quality signal transmission primarily for the then-nascent digital video market and is still considered an efficient use of bandwidth and storage space. MPEG2 was created as the standard for digital broadcasting to provide higher levels of bandwidth transmission needed by, amongst others, direct satellite service (DSS) providers. MPEG1 has an average compression rate of about 1.5 megabits per second (Mbps); the largest possible compression rate for MPEG1 is slightly more than 5 Mbps. MPEG2 bitrates fall between about 3Mbps and about 15Mbps. Interestingly, at bitrates below 3 Mbps, MPEG1 actually performs better than MPEG2. This is because the higher level of precision built into the MPEG2 algorithm requires more processing than MPEG1. At lower bitrates, the percentage difference is great enough to cause significant digital artifacts to appear in MPEG2 encoding that do not appear in MPEG1. MPEG2 should not be used at bitrates lower than 3 Mbps.

Read the whole article here:
http://www.d-co.com/digicaster-faq.html

(2)
MPEG-2

The MPEG-2 standard, established in 1994, is designed to produce higher quality images at higher bit rates. MPEG-2 is not necessarily better than MPEG-1, since MPEG-2 streams at lower MPEG-1 bit rates won't look as good as MPEG-1. But at its specified bit rates between 3-10Mbits/sec, MPEG-2 at the full CCIR-601 resolution of 720x486 pixels NTSC delivers true broadcast quality video. MPEG-2 was engineered so that any MPEG-2 decoder will play back an MPEG-1 stream, ensuring a side-grade path for users who enter into MPEG with the lower priced MPEG-1 encoding hardware. MPEG-2 has also ousted MPEG-3 as the standard for HDTV, and has also received a lot of attention because it's the standard specified for DVD. The primary users of MPEG-2 are broadcast and cable companies who demand broadcast quality digital video and utilize satellite transponders and cable networks for delivery of cable television and direct broadcast satellite


Here's the link:

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is224/s99/GroupG/report1.html#_Toc447982109

Enough said.

[Kdiddy]

"Read the whole article here:
http://www.d-co.com/digicaster-faq.html"

LOL, you obviously didnt follow your own advice did you...or are you trying your patented "Sears" tactic, where you give us PART of the information that suits your supposed story...so YES, reading further in the artical I found these..

"MPEG2 compression algorithms had gotten so effective at reproducing even HDTV-level quality"
"It may be possible for MPEG1 encoding to satisfy your requirements if you require smaller file size. However, there will be a substantial loss in quality from MPEG2. Colors will be dimmer, and hard luminance boundaries will be blurred. In addition, motion may well become pixelated. At very low bitrates, however, in the range of 1.5 Mbps, MPEG1 is preferred to MPEG2."

yep, I read that JUST fine, and funny though, the above does not sound like "close, near, equal to DVD quality" to me...also the words "substantial loss" mean LESS THAN in my book, not sure where your reading comprehension level is. So explain to me again how mpeg1 is better than mpeg2??..LOL.. Also, The "article" (actually its a FAQ, about some product they manufacture) mentions nothing about the effects of RESOLUTION on the quality. Comparing mpeg1 vs. mpeg2 at <2mbps @ 720x480 is much different than comparing mpeg1 vs. mpeg2 <2mbps @ 352x240 or 352x480 . Don't think you have a firm grasp, if at all, on the concept as how resolution & bitrates affect "quality".

Again having read YOU OWN POSTED articles even further from this link http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is224/s99/GroupG/report1.html#_Toc447982109, you would have read this as well, or did you chose to hit the "ignore button" again???

"Certainly, the video quality of MPEG-2 technology is superior to MPEG-1. The two standards are designed to address the needs of different industry segments in terms of data transfer rate."
"For example, video bitstreams as high as 10 Mbits/s are easily encompassed by the MPEG-2 standard. MPEG-2, however, can still be used for occasional applications requiring lower bitrates of 1.5 Mbits/s. For users mainly focused on these lower bitrates, MPEG-1 offers better-optimized performance."

Again for the record, yor original posted idea "mpeg1 @ 1.7 mbps w/ 720x480 provides DVD quality, except the for the blurring in high motion scenes"..
This is complete fallacy!, period. Not only have your own posted links proven it to be such, but you have as well. How many times have you changed your story??? How many times did you change the bitrate, or change what you said to "close, near, almost". Who is the one that thinks the ONLY reason DVDs are made using the mpeg2 is purely from a marketing standpoint??? Who is the one that refuses to explain why SVCD standard is mpeg2 @ 2.6 mbps w/ 480x480??Who is the one that thinks they have the power to convince moderators to ban someone else??So please dont give me this "fanatic", "delusional" crap...take a good hard look in the mirror.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-12-26 20:19:17 ]</font>

[kinneera]

This is the only article that I ever see quoted, and it is sad because the author of this document clearly does not know what he/she is talking about...in fact hasn't even done any basic research about the technology they claim to be informing about. To start with:

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
MPEG1 has an average compression rate of about 1.5 megabits per second (Mbps); the largest possible compression rate for MPEG1 is slightly more than 5 Mbps. MPEG2 bitrates fall between about 3Mbps and about 15Mbps.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Flat out, unconditionally WRONG!! MPEG1 can handle bitrates up to 100Mbps (its in the f*ing spec, try reading it), not just 5Mbps. And obviously MPEG2 can go below 3Mbps, since there are encoders that do it. So right at the outset, we see this author is uninformed, as he is unaware of a basic fact about MPEG1.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
Interestingly, at bitrates below 3 Mbps, MPEG1 actually performs better than MPEG2. This is because the higher level of precision built into the MPEG2 algorithm requires more processing than MPEG1.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

"More processing" does not equate to lower quality. It equates to longer processing time. This is something that no one who works with MPEG2 denies. But what does that extra processing accomplish? How about higher quality, if you are willing to take the extra time encoding. But again, the bottom line is that the compression techniques that are being applied are identical for MPEG1 and MPEG2. Optimizations are often applied by encoders that are expecting different applications for the two formats, but optimizations can be disabled or removed, and then there is no difference.

Finally, I find it almost amusing that one or two people can try to claim that all of China and several major companies all must be wrong about SVCD since MPEG2 is "so obviously worse" than MPEG1 at low bitrates. Every one of my SVCDs, at 352x480 and 720x480 looked great, from DVD sources, when done carefully and with individual considerations for each movie taken into account. They look as good as, and often better than the MPEG1 XVCDs I made when I first got into this hobby.

[Sefy]

Basicly, MPEG1 is more optimized for low resolution/low bitrate while MPEG2 is better for high resolution/high bitrate, so in order to make a decent comparison, encode an SVCD using MPEG1 and see how it looks and compare that to the same movie encoded as MPEG2.

Guys, providing information is imperative for all of us to learn, no one is a genius, and we will make mistakes, but do try keeping the bashing out of it.

You can share information in a nice way where everyone will learn and no one feels that making a mistake is a hurrible punishment that has a death sentence.

[Douglesh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-25 23:00:16, kinneera wrote:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
If you are going to make a 720X480, be sure to make a XVCD MPEG-1, and not an SVCD.

MPEG-1's quality is much better than MPEG-2 at lower bit rates. SVCD is MPEG-2, and that is why it shows more noise/blocks.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

A total myth...try actually reading the tech. specs on MPEG2 sometime.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I would have to agree with Kineera here

[Douglesh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-26 05:14:23, Sefy wrote:
When quoting me, atleast quote all of it kinneera
I don't like doing SVCD's for all these reasons:
1) a decent quality would be 3 CD's atleast
2) takes too long to make
3) requires ALOT of tweaking to actually make it look decent
4) compatibility of SVCD is much lower then VCD
5) requires special software for the PC
6) requires a strong PC to play it

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I have made very nice looking SVCD's on 2 CD's with no blocks at all. It does take me a long time however (ie: 50 hours per movie) on a celeron 400.

[Sefy]

And i've made great looking VCD's on 1 CD only and it takes me 4 hours, so you didn't prove any of my points to be wrong Douglesh.

[asnamlar]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-26 11:22:28, kwag wrote:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-26 09:12:14, asnamlar wrote:
Hi kwag, and what about the audio rate for the clip?

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Couldn't E-Mail you. You don't have an E-Mail address registered.

Sorry!.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[asnamlar]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't E-Mail you. You don't have an E-Mail address registered.

Sorry!.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't even know how to use the forum, sorry.

Kwag, can you please try again, it should work now.

Thanks.

[tendtend]

If your video source is from a DV camcorder, I am sure you will like to use MPG2 to encode the video for a smooth motion. If your Video source is from a DVD movie that is made from a film movie (no interlace), MPG1 looks as smooth as MPG2.

If you want to play you video on computer only, MPG1 may be the choice. But you want to play it on TV, MPG2 is better due to its interlace supporting.

My comments:
encode your DV home video as MPG2 (480x480 or 720x480) at high bit rate (>2500k), so the CD you make is as good as your original (you do want to show your family and friends a perfect home made (S)VCD, don't you?).

encode the commercial movie to any format you feel comfortable (such as 2-cd movie, 3-cd movi , 1-cd movie, and etc.). Who cares!

[Slodown]

@Kwag
Dear Kwag,please send me your TMPGEnc template.
If you would do,I would appreciate that

Slodown@djsniffysniff.de

[Douglesh]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-12-26 22:59:21, Sefy wrote:
Basicly, MPEG1 is more optimized for low resolution/low bitrate while MPEG2 is better for high resolution/high bitrate, so in order to make a decent comparison, encode an SVCD using MPEG1 and see how it looks and compare that to the same movie encoded as MPEG2.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I dont see any difference at all. I would rather use MPEG-1 streams simply because i can use the WINONCD menu-Gen (it doesnt support MPEG-2) but the MPEG-1 aspect ratios at 480x480 dont display correctly on my TV. MPEG-1 & MPEG-2 at same resolution & bitrate are IDENTICAL.
The only differences in the two are

a)compatability
b)encoding options