**question about templates**

[gangsterusa]

I have been using TMPGEnc for some time now successfully. I made my own template to convert DIVXavi's to SVCD. (First I convert the audio using V-Dub). To get the quality that I like to see it usually takes 2cdr's to put a two our movie in SVCD format encoding at 1500-1600 bitrate. (using Nero to burn)

My Question: I have seen KVCD templates that claim to put up to 120min. on 1cdr (80min). This is MPEG-1 VCD. Would this be better quality than using MPEG-2 SVCD at 1600 bitrate?

[gangsterusa]

anybody??

[cheftaz]

If you try and put 120 min on 1 cdr you will have poor quality. I have tried and adjusted settings time after time. Poor quality. I use bitrate calculator to determine how high bitrate I need to encode at. If your movie is 120 minutes long and you want to put onto 2 80 min cdr your bitrate would be 1580 for svcd quality would be iffy

[kwag]

I have been using TMPGEnc for some time now successfully. I made my own template to convert DIVXavi's to SVCD. (First I convert the audio using V-Dub). To get the quality that I like to see it usually takes 2cdr's to put a two our movie in SVCD format encoding at 1500-1600 bitrate. (using Nero to burn)

My Question: I have seen KVCD templates that claim to put up to 120min. on 1cdr (80min). This is MPEG-1 VCD. Would this be better quality than using MPEG-2 SVCD at 1600 bitrate?

Hi gangsterusa:

Visit the site, and see for yourself. Feel free to browse the forums and read what other users have to say.

kwag

[banjazzer]

Your templates are very impressive, although I have altered them to 352x288 and 352x240, as I got no luck playing them at double height. However, why do you use CQ instead of 2-pass VBR? If you use your templates with the project Wizard in the latest versions of TMPGenc (having first altered the max and min bitrates equal to the CQ limits) you can easily adjust the average bitrate to fully utilise the space on the disc.

[kwag]

Your templates are very impressive, although I have altered them to 352x288 and 352x240, as I got no luck playing them at double height. However, why do you use CQ instead of 2-pass VBR? If you use your templates with the project Wizard in the latest versions of TMPGenc (having first altered the max and min bitrates equal to the CQ limits) you can easily adjust the average bitrate to fully utilise the space on the disc.

Heres why:
http://tangentsoft.net/video/mpeg/enc-modes.html

kwag

[banjazzer]

Right, I think I understand. But have you actually compared CQ to 2-pass VBR? I presume yes, but in the very short time I've been experimenting with your templates, I've tried a couple of VBR encodes of over 2 hours, (from good quality DivX) and I can't honestly tell much difference from the standard 2 disc VCD encodes. And whenever I try CQ (VCD and SVCD) I find it a total pain to get the setting right. I end up doing 2-3 full encodes. 8)

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you, and thanks for the very useful URL. Basically, accepting CQ should be the best method, I'm asking is there a significant (ie noticeable) difference in quality?