MPEG1 or MPEG2 for 352x288

[Mars-L]

Hello,

Assume I have a movie that I want to convert to MPEG with a video bitrate @ 1750. I know 480x576 would give it to much artifacts, so that leaves (besides CVD) a resolution of 352x288.

Okay 352x288 @ 1750

I am using CCE 2.62 / 2.64

Question:
Should I choose MPEG1 or MPEG2
Previously at this bitrate I would have choosen MPEG2, but lately I have the impression that MPEG1 seems to look better..... MPEG2 (4:3 without borders) still seems to give (some) artifacts at this rate and resolution.

So my questions:
1 - Am I right that even at 352x288 a bitrate of 1750 (CBR) isn't enough for an artifact less movie with MPEG2 ?
2 - When using the CCE plugin into DVD2SVCD / FlasK / DVDx, is it 100% sure that I am really using the CCE MPEG Codec or might Windows accidentally be changed and use another (worse) codec ?
Infact: is the plugin itself already the codec ?

Greetz
Mars-L

[SatStorm]

You do realise of course that you are -X- with those settings...


Anyway, mpeg 2 gonna show better with interlace material @ any resolution. for example 352 X 288 @ 1400kb/s looks identical VHS in my opinion.

If your source is progressive, choose VCD.

Also try a VBR xCVD (1000min - 2000average - 3000 max).
If you don't like the results, step to 1500min - 2500aver - 3500max and if that still doesn't look good then rise to 1500 min - 3000 aver - 4500 max!
Beyond that, you go for full CCIR !

[Mars-L]

You do realise of course that you are -X- with those settings...

Yep I know. But I am in the experience that most players support xVCD. Atleast... amongst the group of people I am "sharing my family VCD's" with.

Anyway, mpeg 2 gonna show better with interlace material @ any resolution. for example 352 X 288 @ 1400kb/s looks identical VHS in my opinion.

So you are saying; even at a lower bitrate (with the same other settings) MPEG2 looks better then MPEG1 ?? I.e. a "xVCD 1150 CBR MPEG2 352x288" looks better then a "VCD 1150 CBR 352x288" ???

Also try a VBR xCVD (1000min - 2000average - 3000 max).
If you don't like the results, step to 1500min - 2500aver - 3500max and if that still doesn't look good then rise to 1500 min - 3000 aver - 4500 max!
Beyond that, you go for full CCIR !

I have a P3-500Mhz and don't want to wait 25 hours for just a movie of 90 minutes because of VBR multipass. So I prever CBR. I know VBR looks better, but I won't spend the time on that, knowing DVD-R will be used within 2 years. When I got DVD-R everything will be re-done.
So till then I'm using CBR, but preverly with the optimal settings.

Thanx so far
Mars-L

[SatStorm]

No, I said that if your source is interlace, 352 X 288 gonna look better as mpeg 2 than mpeg 1 with average bitrates beyond 1300kb/s.

On the standard VCD bitrate (1150kb/s) I don't see any difference between mpeg 1 and mpeg 2, but I know many users state that there is a difference. In theory and on my tests I don't see why this "myth" exist, but from the other hand, I maybe missing something they (those other users) don't and indeed is a difference.
Better try and compare yourself for this matter.

Personally, I never do xVCDs, only multipass xSVCDs and CVDs. I don't support mpeg 1 in general, because interlace is important for me.

In your case - and because the mpeg 2 encoding take more time mpeg 1 - I don't see mpeg 2 as an option for you. Make CBR xVCDs with a bitrate about 1700kb/s. They gonna look good. Like a multipass 1200kb/s but in a much less time

[RoopeT]

It doesn't matter if the source is interlaced or not, if it's resized to 352x288 it's not interlaced anymore. MPEG1 is supposed to be more optimized for low bitrates like 1700, but I don't think the difference between using mpeg2 or mpeg1 is that big.

I have a P3-500Mhz and don't want to wait 25 hours for just a movie of 90 minutes because of VBR multipass.

I see you're using CCE 2.62. You should try to get yourself CCE 2.50, that supports avisynth scripts. With DVD2SVCD + CCE 2.50, I don't think it will take too long for multipass (passes=1, you don't have to do 4-5 passes to see the improvement) VBR even with your computer. (CCE encodes ~60 fps on my Thunderbird 1200 when using 352x288)

[Mars-L]

In your case - and because the mpeg 2 encoding take more time mpeg 1 - I don't see mpeg 2 as an option for you. Make CBR xVCDs with a bitrate about 1700kb/s. They gonna look good. Like a multipass 1200kb/s but in a much less time

Thanx so far.
Could you also give your thoughts on this (infact that's the mean question);

What's better quality (NOT depending on encoding time!!, I only don't wanna use VBR);
1- CBR 1750 MPEG1 352x288
2- CBR 1750 MPEG2 352x288


I know your reply includes the answer, but I'm still not 100% sure.
When I'm right you'd choose option 2 ???

Or would a resolution of 480x576 (MPEG1 or MPEG2) still be a good option at 1750 without VBR and for a movie without borders.

To my knowledge 480x576 uses a bitstream that should be at least 2.5x higher to get the same quality when it comes to artifacts (. So 480x576 only comes insight when a bitrate of ATLEAST 2400 is optional.


Greetz
Mars-L

[SatStorm]

No, a resolution like 480 X 576 or even 352 X 576 ain't enough for 1750 CBR if your source is 4:3 or 16:9.

For 352 X 288 it is ok and I believe that mpeg 2 is better. Of course other users may have other opinions

[Fredd]

I played a bit with this resolution.
I captured some cartoons that I converted in VCD. I expected much better quality with MPEG 2 (Ligos encoder, DVD bitrate); it was better in moving sequence of course, but it was still "JPEG grainy" in the rest.

On live shows, it's ok so I think it depends on your source.

I found that resizing these captures in 352*576 will give more pleasant picture, with some side effects of course.

[Mars-L]

I played a bit with this resolution.
I captured some cartoons that I converted in VCD. I expected much better quality with MPEG 2 (Ligos encoder, DVD bitrate); it was better in moving sequence of course, but it was still "JPEG grainy" in the rest.

On live shows, it's ok so I think it depends on your source.

I found that resizing these captures in 352*576 will give more pleasant picture, with some side effects of course.

Probably an frequent discussion.
But ocourse 352x576 is better, it has a higher resolution so sharper edges. But to get the same quality (when if comes to artifacts) you need twice the bitrate (352x576 = twice as much pixels, so needs twice as much refreshing = bitrate, so 352x288 @ 1300 is gives the same quality (artifactswise) as 352x576 @ 2600 !!!)

[SatStorm]

@ RoopeT: "It doesn't matter if the source is interlaced or not, if it's resized to 352x288 it's not interlaced anymore"

I am not talking for the input but for the output! If you choose interlace output, your 352 X 288 is interlaced. Also if you don't de-interlace your input, the final 352 X 288 gonna be a combination of both fields. 144 from the fild A and 144 from field B. I found this better, than de-interlace to field A only or opposite. No jumping FX and full motion that way. There is unfortunatelly a ghost like FX on some motions, but at least if you play those interlaced 352 X 288 mpeg 2s to a progressive scan output DVD player, looks much better any de-interlaced source.