For betatesters:TMPGenc 2.51:At last equal quality with CCE!

[SatStorm]

YES!
This version remains buggy, but for quality issuses I found it equal with CCE!

To test it yourself, I suggest to download both 2.51 and 2.51plus, and use the templates of 2.51plus on 2.51!
For best results, use this template: SuperVideoCD (PAL) - MPEG2 352x576 VBR 1020kbps.mcf
It creates CVD (the china's version of SVCD, compatible both with SVCD and Dvd's D2 resolution). It gives amazing quality, in really small size files. The quality is equal to CCE's 3Pass VBR!!!!

Now, I want beta testers to do a thing that it will help all of us a lot!
Please, you with DVD - R or DVD +RW recorders:
Encode a video with the SuperVideoCD (PAL) - MPEG2 352x576 VBR 1020kbps.mcf remplate and tmpgenc 2.51
Then, demux it, use maestro or whatever and burn a DVD with the file.
Inform us if it works!

Why we need this test when we have the compatible resolution?
Because DVDs has some special way for mpeg 2, which does not allow big gops. This new amazing template for 352 X 576, use big gops and then splits them on smaller ones. That's why Tsunami all the time say " Improve the gop, improve the split of big gops" etc on his history text the last months on TMPGenc.
Maybe, his technique creates amazing mpegs for CVD/SVCD, but the mpeg 2 produced file , which I remind you it is 352 X 576, a totally D2 LEGAL DVD resolution, ain't compatible with the DVD mpeg 2 standards! In this case, that amazing template is uselless...

If the mpeg 2 file is compatible with DVD and SVCD, then it is the total solution for mainstream ussiues. SVCD for today and the same file for DVD tomorrow.
If the mpeg 2 file ain't full compatible with DVD, but only with CVD/SVCD, then it is useless for people wish in the near future to buy a DVD burner and made homemade DVDs without re-encoding their CVD/SVCDs

Hey beta testers, there is job for you now!!!

[Triffid]

I made a couple is SVCDs last night to try out 2.51, and I was impressed with the results. It was no real objective test, but I had just about given up of SVCD due to blockiness (and been using 352x288 MPEG2 @2300 instead) and now I'm going to start trying all over again!!!!!

My tests (composite video captures from my TV) didn't have a high degree of movement in them (like my shakey home videos do!) but I do think that this is an improvement over previous version anyway.

(Didn't do what you asked, but I thought I would give my opinion on 2.51 anyway......haven't had time to download the plus version...actually couldn't find the download link yet)

[kwag]

Hey SatStorm. Where did you get a "plus" link?.

I haven't seen any 2.51plus version, ant there are no links on either www.tmpgenc.com or www.tmpgenc.net

[kriskim]

at tmpgenc.net, there's an ad on the bottom to download a 30day trial of the plus version. it forwards you to...
http://www.pegasys-inc.com/e_main.html

[Kdiddy]

"For best results, use this template: SuperVideoCD (PAL) - MPEG2 352x576 VBR 1020kbps.mcf "


Well this I would expect,...I never seen CCE preform well at a bitrate of 1020 kbps....honestly anything below 1500, you are indeed better off using TMPG.

[kwag]

Hi kriskim:

Thanks for the link.

I downloaded the TMPGEnc plus, and it's exactly the same as the regular version 2.51.

The internal versions and core versions are identical in both ( 2.51, 2.51Pro ).

There is no difference in quality generated from either version. It's the same.

Looks like in the future, the plus may get more features, and become the commercial version.

Or maybe we'll loose the standard version, and the plus will become the only version

kwag

[SatStorm]

The first day TMPGenc 2.51 publish, there were some infos for tmpgenc 2.51 plus on the tmpgenc.net. Those infos deleted after a while...
I remember that tmpgenc plus, is optimized for the new 2pass VBR fuction . This fuction does not exist on tmpgenc 2.51. Also, is different the way big gops splits on those 2 versions.
The prize for tmpgenc plus ain't high, so I 'll buy it, when and if became more fast. With my (all new!) 1700xp+, the CVD encoding (352 X 576) is about 0.25X. For xSVCD (352 X 288), the encoding is about 0.40X.
Tmpgenc is slow... If the 352 X 576 encoding became faster, let say half realtime and the 352X288 encoding became realtime, then OK, I'll be the first to buy it. Untill then, the free trial versions are OK for me...
Anyway, that is not the point here:
I want to know if that 352 X 576 (or 480 for ntsc) new template, creates mpeg 2 playable to DVD-/+ R(W). The compatibility isn't only resolution, the gops play much role too!
My CVD template does not have the amazing quality of the SuperVideoCD (PAL) - MPEG2 352x576 VBR 1020kbps.mcf one, but I know from previous tests that it is playable with DVD-R on any DVD standalone supporting D2 resolution (almost all 2000 and 2001 models).
If the SuperVideoCD (PAL) - MPEG2 352x576 VBR 1020kbps.mcf template is playable on DVD-/+ R(W) disks and standalones, then I found the total solution for me. CVD today, DVD tomorrow.
If that template is not playable with DVD-/+ R(W) and standalones, then it is useless , even if it is great....

Common people, test it pleassseeeee!!!

[Triffid]

I know it's not a reasonable question now we are talking about a commercial product (but I'm really asking about the previous freeware version, aren't !...so I can delude myself a while longer) but:

Does loading 2.51 Plus prevent the 'famous' registry hack for the 30 day limit in the freeware version from working properly. As much as I want to try the new one, I don't want to loose my MPEG-2 capablity (on the previous versions) in the process.

Anyone with any experience?

[Dragonsf]

I always thought that 480x576 is the PAL SVCD resolution and 352x576 is for NTSC. Please corerect me, if I'm wrong

[SiCN]

Intresting, anybody knows the difference between 2-pass (old type) and 2-pass (new type)?

@Dragon: No, thats wrong. 352x480/576 is non standard. 480x576 is PAL Standard. 352x576 is PAL non-standard. 480x480 is NTSC standard, 352x480 isn't.

/D

[Dragonsf]

Intresting, anybody knows the difference between 2-pass (old type) and 2-pass (new type)?

@Dragon: No, thats wrong. 352x480/576 is non standard. 480x576 is PAL Standard. 352x576 is PAL non-standard. 480x480 is NTSC standard, 352x480 isn't.

/D

Yes, you're right. I confused the numbers, 480x480 i.e.But are these non-standard resolutions worth the trouble.Because I can get very good CDs with 480x576 at 2000 VBR (=>45 min video).

[martyt]

Any pay version should include MPEG 2 with no 30 day limitation or any other limitation.

If you read the warning message that comes up when you do MPEG 2 you will notice that it says or implies that the 30 day limit is legally necessary because TMPG can't distribute MPEG 2 encoding for free. They are able to get around this limitation by giving it to us for only 30 days.

I have a dumb question. If I use the settings noted in the first post on this thread and make an SVCD with the mpg that it creates, will I be able to view this on an NTSC TV?? Does the SVCD format allow me to do this?

[SatStorm]

for one more time for newbies:
PAL DVD D1 resolution: 720 X 576
NTSC DVD D1 resolution: 720 X 480
Broadcast Pal resolution: 704 X 576
Broadcast Ntsc resolution: 704 X 480
SVCD Pal resolution: 480 X 576
SVCD NTSC resolution: 480 X 480
PAL DVD D2 resolution: 352 X 576 (It is legal, standard)
NTSC DVD D2 resolution: 352 X 480 (It is legal, standard)
CVD Pal resolution: 352 X 576 (It is china's SVCD, compatible with SVCD)
CVD NTSC resolution: 352 X 480 (It is in theory china's SVCD, compatible with SVCD. China Don't use NTSC)
Pal VCD: 352 X 288
NTSC VCD: 352 X 240
DVB Pal Broadcast: Anything between 352-720 Hor lines X 576
DVB NTSC Broadcast: Anything between 352 X 720 hor lines X 480

There is also DVD D4 resolution, same as VCD, but ain't confirmed that is legal.

So, 352 X 576 (480 for NTSC) is both CVD (Svcd compatible,)DVD (D2 - Half DVD resolution - totaly LEGAL) and DVB.

If you create a CVD, a player fully support SVCD will play it (except philips I think....)
If you de-mux a CVD file, authorite it with maestro or whatever as DVD and burn it to a DVD -/+ R(W) disc, then you have a DVD video disc (OK, change the audio from 44100 to 48000 also, that's another issue)

So, with 352 X 576 (480) you have movies to burn on CDs today and to your DVDs tommorow

BUT (there is always a but)

The mpeg 2 gop stracture of DVD Video, is limited by some standards. Those standards ain't exist with CVD (and SVCD).
A DVD Video gop, must never be bigger than 15 in a raw.
The new TMPGenc template, use a HUGE gop stracture, then split it on smaller ones. So in theory, that template creates mpeg 2 OK for CVD (and SVCD, xSVCD), but not OK for DVD with the same (and totally legal) D2 resolution.

So the question is: Does tmpgenc split the gop stracture in a way that is acceptable for DVD gop stracture standards?

If yes, then this template can give as about 4 - 6 hours per DVD-R(g) 4.7GB, in SVHS resolution. It is OK for mainstream use
If no, then this template is limited only for CD use. That is uselless for the future...

Common people, this is an advanced conversion Forum! Do an advance test please!!!

[martyt]

Thank you thank you thank you!!

[therick]

Ok, ok, so the quality might be equal to CCE...but what about encoding time? I am only ask because this is another reason people use CCE...because speed wise it blows TMPG away....just a question...

[smokin*1]

Ok, ok, so the quality might be equal to CCE...but what about encoding time? I am only ask because this is another reason people use CCE...because speed wise it blows TMPG away....just a question...

Does it _blow_ TMPG away? Everyonce in a while I break down and try encoding with CCE again, then I do the math and to me it seems CCE takes just about as long...am I completely wrong here?? First off, most of us from what I hear encode the audio with an external program so after the audiuo is encoded seperately, the .vaf file for CCE is passed through and the time it takes to multiplex these audio and video files together, I didnt find that much of an advange using CCE timewise. Admittedly, it does allow 3-5 pass VBR's, but aside from this, which adds even more time for not that noticiable quality difference (IMO), tell me again why CCE is supposedly sooo fast Am I missing something

[w00kiee]

Does it _blow_ TMPG away? Everyonce in a while I break down and try encoding with CCE again, then I do the math and to me it seems CCE takes just about as long

well.. im waiting on my chip to arrive so i can try out cce.. hehe.. from what i hear on vcdhelp and from buddies of mine cce does own tmpgenc for time and quality in mpeg2... i tried tmpg plus quickly and it does encode faster.. i have to wait till i have something worthwhile to burn before i use a cdr to test the quality ... anyways...
the thing i liked about tmpgenc is its free... i still use 12a for everything.. but if its gonna be pay then it has to go up against cce (even though cce is more expensive) and cce has it beat.. (tmpg 12a is very stable .. none since can say so)

but.. if you have a old processor tmpgenc is the best way to go

[JJamez]

[quote="smokin*1"]

Ok, ok, so the quality might be equal to CCE...but what about encoding time? I am only ask because this is another reason people use CCE...because speed wise it blows TMPG away....just a question...

CCE is clearly much faster than TMPG when doing the same type of encoding (2-pass vs. 2-pass or CBR vs. CBR). CCE is at least twice as fast in these conditions.

Now when you get into 3 or 4 pass encoding in CCE, then you have a point, as TMPG can only do 2 pass - a 4 pass encode in CCE will take roughly as long as a 2 pass in TMPG. That said, I don't even think there is a comparison to be made quality wise between a 4 pass CCE encode and a 2 pass TMPG - at least with the older versions (pre 2.51, which I have not had a chance to try yet).

JJ

[smokin*1]

Have you taken into account that CCE makes a .vaf file which is in essence a third pass on a 2pass VBR? Also creation of audio file and multiplexing the 2 together, quality aside, aren't the two relatively equal as far as time is concerned?

[Kdiddy]

Again since it seems to be clearly miss, this is really no comparison to be made..because it is widely known & opinionated that CCE performs much better at higher end SVCD & low DVD bitrates, not at low typical VCD bitratees....so in comparison to this template in your original remark:

For best results, use this template: SuperVideoCD (PAL) - MPEG2 352x576 VBR 1020kbps.mcf

Everyone would expect TMPG to preform better at this "chokingly" low SVCD bitrate. So there is really no need for any tests to be done.

[Jestorius]

I made a test with CCE and Tmpgenc - VCD encoding of a DVCAM tape.
.
The quallity is allmost the same. The VCD encoded with CCE has better color and contrast. And the encoding process with CCE is still faster.
But with filtering in Tmpgenc I can make the same VCD in quallity but takes much more time.

[RimmeR]

Hi,
I've tested the above version last night (Not at same pc now so i may get a little

I ran the project wizard for Pal DVD output 2 pass VBR 7000 but when you click on other settings the NTSC tab is apparant in video settings, but is greyed out.

Is this a glitch or do i have to load unlock.mcf and change this setting manually?

Thx

[SatStorm]

YOU MISS THE POINT!!!!

I don't care to learn about quality, it is fair enough with this template I mention and equal with cce. I already know that.
I don't ask for the quality, I ask for the compatibility!!!!

AGAIN TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND (if you don't yet)

Someone PLEASE, encode a small avi or mpeg or anything with tmpgenc 2.51 STANTARD version, with the template I mention. Then de-mux the file with what-program-you-like, authore it and burn it to a DVD-/+ R(W)
Is it playable, or not as DVD D2? Then please report!

I ask someone to confirm that the SVCD/CVD mpeg 2 files with this template, is playable or not when it is burned as DVD.
And who ask about VCD / mpeg 1? The VCD fuctions of TMPGenc are the same the last 9 versions....

About CCE vs TMPGenc
I use DVB transmissions for my source. Those are ready mpeg 2 files. For using them with cinemacraft I have to:
Create dummy files with DVD2AVI (the only program fom frameserving mpeg-2 easy), then open virtualdub, set it up, start frameserving and then use cce to encode.
Do that with 35 3,5min Videoclips as I do every day... It is impossible...

With TMPGenc it is much easier
I use DVD2AVI to open the DVB mpeg2, create the frameserving files, load them to tmpgenc, program the encoding proccess, save the project and when finished with all the projects, I batch encode them. About 7 hours later, I have totaly ready for burn, 35 songs from MTV/VH1/MCM2/VIVA/TMF/Whatever channel you can imagine.

So, cinemacraft ain't a solution for me...
(and generally, it is not a solution for anyone working with dvb source)

In a way, I use tmpgenc as a transcoder. And the quality is great.

You want a tip to see what TMPGenc can do? Then go and do an XSVCD 352 X 288 Mpeg 2 interlace, using CQ_VBR 1200/65 %, using the SHARP filter about 74 . And use for your source DVD or DVB files.
You can't have the same quality with CCE.

Again, and I hope for the last time. The question is very simply and it can be answered with a simply test:
Are those CVD/SVCD files from the new tmpgenc template compatible with the DVD gop strocture?

In theory: If tmpgenc split them right, yes. If not, no.
We can't know this without a simply test!!!!

This post ain't for quality, ain't for direct DVD creation, ain't for tmpeg 2.51plus in general. It is for the compatibility of those files!

[Kdiddy]

"For betatesters:TMPGenc 2.51:At last equal quality with CCE!"

"YES!
This version remains buggy, but for quality issuses I found it equal with CCE! "

"It gives amazing quality, in really small size files. The quality is equal to CCE's 3Pass VBR!!!! "


Geee I wonder where someone would think you are talking in terms of quality???...next time say what you truly mean then, and you wont have to be frustrated!

[kinneera]

Interesting, I honestly wasn't aware that there was some sort of GOP limit on MPEG2 encoded for DVD. In fact, I thought I read somewhere that MPEG2 doesn't even require the concept of a GOP, at least in the same sense as MPEG1. Still, I would be very surprised if any DVD player would actually refuse to play an MPEG2 stream on a DVD because of this. Since the MPEG decoder chips in a majority of these units are really quite generalized (often its just a matter of getting past the firmware - read the posts on fooling old Sonys into playing SVCDs if you want to get a feel for what I'm talking about), I would imagine it would have no problem playing the MPEG2, regardless of the GOP structure. In particular, for units that clearly are able to play CVDs/SVCDs, why would they suddenly refuse to play it just because its on a DVD instead of a CD when the MPEG decoder clearly understands the stream?

Still, by all means do the test, I'm just as curious. It would only tell us what one DVD player handles, though. More realistically, we would want to have people start testing it on as many DVD players as possible and add it as a category in the compatibility lists.

BTW, just on a minor note, I believe 720x480 is CCIR-601, and 704x480 is D1.

[SatStorm]

He he he he
It was a "marketing" trick, to get attention....
You see, most of the people don't like testing, but all like to learn if the A program is better B program.
I believed that by getting the attention that way, maybe, just maybe, someone gonna test that thing. My fault... People don't like testing, just getting the knowledge by others....
That's life...

Well, I learned a few things from this post for sure:
Noone gonna help me on advanced tests. I am alone now...
Also, the members of this forum, are rich! They all use cinemacraft!!!
Unfortunatelly, I am not that rich to join them. I have to work 6 moths to buy the program
So, I am stuck with TMPGenc... And, I gonna buy the plus version, If that is possible in my country!

Anyway, I have to say that VCDhelp and these forums help me a lot until now. I learned my basics on encoding from here and I still learn a few parameters on stuff I usually don't mess, like DVD ripping, analogue grabbing, etc.
Looks like I gonna stay here for about a year. The next 6 months learning the last of the basics of the encoding and the second half for helping people, newbies like I use to be a few months ago.
For conversion matters, looks like this forum gave me the most it could
So thank everybody for this, and have fun...
I'll never ask you again to do a thing!!!! (That is a promise)

[SatStorm]

The post before was for Kdiddy
I have some problems with my LAN conection, I can't load entirely the pages of this forum! Anyway
@kinneera: There is a limitation on DVD gop structure. There is no limitation on CVD/SVCD! Silly isn't it?
Also, I shall try to find the correct name for 720 X 576 and 702 X 576 resolution! I believe is D1, because they use this for DVD. And DVD-video is 720 X 576. That's why there is D2 (352 X 576), etc...

About the compatibility: I tested some months ago a few DVD standalones. Some of them can't play SVCD/VCD at all. The same files on DVD - R disks was full playable.
So, I believe it is possible a file full playable as CVD on a standalone player, ain't playable with a DVD-R disk.
I shall buy a DVD burner in the next 2 months. There are some new LG DVD burners out there (Legendary Goldstar). They say that there are universal ones (both dvd-r and dvd+rw). With those asian guys, anything is possible. But even if it burns only dvd-r on 2X speed, it is ok for me. They say it shall cost about 450 Euros.... Ain't bad!

[Kdiddy]

The problem isnt your connection but the servers that the forum is on is suffering from heavy traffic. And by no means am I rich, I'll have to admit I obtained my copy of CCE through the black market.

[kinneera]

There is a limitation on DVD gop structure. There is no limitation on CVD/SVCD! Silly isn't it?

I believe you! I'm still willing to bet it won't actually matter to the decoder chip though. In fact, I hope you recognize the actually very encouraging nature of the information you posted about non-SVCD/VCD-compatible players happily playing the very same MPEGs when they're on DVD-Rs! I would be very surprised to see the opposite effect. But obviously, only time will tell. And I think the problem you will find with asking for help in testing is that most of us still aren't prepared to shell out the dough for a DVD-burner.

Also, I shall try to find the correct name for 720 X 576 and 702 X 576 resolution! I believe is D1, because they use this for DVD. And DVD-video is 720 X 576. That's why there is D2 (352 X 576), etc...

Hmmm, OK, apparently they're the same. 704x480 apparently is technically "cropped D1". In any case, the info on CCIR-601: "It also specifies the number of samples per line for 525/60(59,94) systems and 625/50 systems. The samples per total line are different, but the samples per active line are the same for both systems: 720 samples per active line.", found here: http://www.crs4.it/~luigi/MPEG/ccir601.html.

[baker]

Right I have one simple question for ye. Could tmpegenc plus encode me a file at a reonable encoding time with no blocks and a res of x X 576.
AND (here comes the punch) on only one cd?

BAker