352x288 best quality

[vdvorsta]

Is the movie quality on MPEG2 xSVCD with a resolution of 352x288 and CBR 1150 kbits/s. better than the standard MPEG1 VCD ?

And if so, can I use this xSVCD to fit longer movies on a single CD-Rom than on the standard VCD ?

[DJRumpy]

A file, with the same resolution, and bitrate, should look about the same, between MPEG1, and MPEG2. I should also note, that 352x288 is not SVCD (x or otherwise), its PAL VCD. SVCD resolution is 480x480.

<Begin Pulpit Preaching>
Why would you want to fit more movie onto one disk? This type of mentality baffles me. A CD-R costs pennies. Why butcher your movie with lower bitrates, just ot make it fit? A standard length movie (say 1:30 ) should fit on about 2 CD-R's, if encoded to standard (non xVCD or xSVCD).
</End Pulpit Preaching>

That said, bitrate is the primary determining factor for size. X number of bits per second. X number of seconds in your movie = X size. Use a bitrate calculator to determine the bitrate you need, to make your movie fit (on 1 or 2 CD's ). SVCD resolution will require higher bitrate, and becuase of that, the MPEG will be larger, but the quality is much better than you will get with VCD. VCD looks very poor in comparison.

[Gazorgan]

Here Here!!

/RANT ON

That is the BANE OF DivX/XviD existence!!! The '1 Disk' mentality. I saw a 1 disk backup of Saving Private Ryan, my friend was very proud of it but it made my eyes bleed to watch it.

Along the same line, trying to fit too much on a single disks usually makes the final product so poor, its not worth the 20 cents you saved. Even worse "I don't like to get up and change disks". Well then get a DVD burner or a multiple disk machine!!!!

/RANT OFF

Go for quality over saving pennies on disks. Even DVDR's, quality over the dollar you save!

[Bulten]

hehe Gazorgan...
I would love to se a sample from that 1 CD Saving private ryan. Seriously I agree with you. Why make such a rip?
Anyway there might be reasons for some to fit much video on the same CD. Maybe you don't care that much. For example a documentary, it's not a big deal.
I also guess most quality freaks have given up their CD-burners for DVD-burners now...
I have... but I am no big quality freak...I just don't like to get up and change disk!!!!! :icon11:

[DJRumpy]

<back on pulpit>
My gawd...no wonder we American's are so fat. One 10 foot trip in 45 minutes is too much. I make more trips to the refrigerator for something to drink!
<end pulpit speech>

I've tried to view even a short VCD (Darkness Falls). It's only about 1 hour and 20 minutes. Of course they stuck it all on a single disk. It was like watching a movie through an old Coke bottle. I thought the movie title was describing the contents. Even done properly, with digital source, VCD still looks poor compared to any other format, including VHS. That is, unless you've used the VHS tape 100+ times, and left it in your car in 100 degree summer weather. Then they look about the same.

I was trying to download the classic 'Wizard of Oz'. I have the VHS copy. I wanted the digital rip, but they keep posting it in VCD. Ugh..I wash my hands of that format. This is one thing I think the US did well on. Ignore a bad thing when we saw it comming...

[vdvorsta]

Thanks for all the reply's.

The thing that I wonder is infact to compare mpeg1 with mpeg2, of course and I agree that a movie on disk with higher bitrate and higher resolution is better for quality and sharpnes even use 2 or more pass VBR over CBR. Once I made mpeg1 video with full dvd resolution with 2500 kbits/s and strange anough the playback (on PC, becauses its doesnt work on DVD stand alone) the quality was better than the same movie with the same parameters in mpeg2. So if mpeg2 is not better than mpeg1 why the DVD standard is mpeg2, whats the really difference and what effects will brings it to lower resolution. If you have choice between an standard VCD and XSVCD (with same resolution/bitrate as the standaard VCD -- yes it is a part of XSVCD -- ), what and why is then your choice ?

[DJRumpy]

I'd retry your tests. A file encoded at full DVD resolution 720x480 would look horrible at 2500Kb/s, as that bitrate is rather low for that resolution. I can't believe your encoder let you pick a bitrate that high for MPEG-1 to begin with.

MPEG-2 is structurally almost identical to MPEG-1. Two files, encoded at the same bitrate, resolution, and settings, should look about the same. MPEG-2 brough additional features, like interlaced support, and higher maximum bitrate support (MPEG-1 supports a maximum bitrate of 1.8Mb/s), among other things.

Rerun your test. Pick a standard resoution (like VCD), and a standard bitrate (like 1150 kb/s), and compare the two.

[Bluez]

djrumpy, don't be so negative about vcd quality... i have three original vcd's laying around here, and the quality is incredible!!! i've never ever encoded any material myself to achive those results

(the vcd's were: crouching tiger hidden dragon, gladiators, and titanic, especially titanic (horrible movie, but that's something else ) has incredible good mpg1 water scenes

i've seen quite a few bad dvd's on top of that

although, yes, i agree, 1h20 on a single disk is too much, can't be an offical vcd either, must have been xvcd or svcd

then, last remark, a properly coded vcd might theoretically be worse than a vhs tape, but i've yet to see one (disregarding the home brewn products, of course )

so, all in all, don't be too negative

[Conquest10]

MPEG-1 supports a maximum bitrate of 1.8Mb/s

if this were true, then why do i have a collection of xvcds at 2500kbps?

[minchjp]

I have a great dvd player which improved the quality of a vcd or svcd, so a 1cd vcd looks almost as good as a dvd. (no bs!)

[Conquest10]

I have a great dvd player which improved the quality of a vcd or svcd, so a 1cd vcd looks almost as good as a dvd. (no bs!)

yeah, my 1 cd kcvds look pretty damn good too. not dvd, but close.

[nickerous]

just to add my two cents....

Currently, I'm backing up 20min tv episodes to svcds. I've seen other peoples, 3 episodes per disc vcds and have also made some of these same vcds myself. Mine are light years better than some of the other vcds I've seen. I think it all depends on the time involved in encoding. If I use noise reduction, high quality, and highest motion search precision in TMPGenc, I get a pretty sharp looking vcd file (200 or so mb). If I do the same thing in standard svcd, it IS dvd quality. The only dvds that are better quality are the "direct from the digital source" transfers (Monsters Inc, Bug's life....maybe episode 2). Then again, the source for my svcds are digital as well (satellite). Personally, I'll not go back to vcd quality. svcd is much better. Even if I lower the bit rate to say 2000 kbps (then I can put 40 min on 1 disc). I've only done that once and the videos looked ok.......still, standard svcd is my encoding of choice.

that's my story and I'm sticking to it

[Conquest10]

Monsters Inc....maybe episode 2

i have both of those and i think episode 2 is WAY better than monsters inc. monsters inc is not as good cuz it has two versions of it on the disc. so its basically half the size of episode 2.

[DivXExpert]

The Widescreen and the Fullscreen version of Monters Inc. are the same MPEG-2 Stream. At least on the R1 version.

[Conquest10]

The Widescreen and the Fullscreen version of Monters Inc. are the same MPEG-2 Stream. At least on the R1 version.

no they're not. they are on two completely different titles. one is 4 gigs and the other is 3 something gigs.

[vdvorsta]

Agains, thanks to all.

But I still have the same question. What is the best quality for 352x288 (in case of PAL) OR What is the best quality for 352x240 (in case of NTSC)

a) It is MPEG1
b) It is MPEG2

Importing to is that the comparing of the two (MPEG1 and MPEG2) is happend with the same conditions and for my question the conditions of standard VCD (1150 kbits CBR for the video and 224 kbits for the sound and also with same filter conditions of course).

Thanks in advance !!

[Earthbulb]

DJRumpy

The interlace support of MPEG2 makes a huge difference over MPEG1... The same res and bitrate will still look quite different. Far more natural looking motion.

[vdvorsta]

If my source isn't interleaced, can I than make there an interleace mpeg from ?
How do I doing that, and will it make a diiference ?

[Bluez]

if your source is not interlaced, i would assume the framerate is approx. 25, so in that case stick to vcd

[DJRumpy]

Earthbulb, I indicated he/she should create a VCD resolution MPEG, which by it's very nature, will be de-interlaced in the process. Comparing an interlaced and non-interlaced image would not be a very valid test, since one is designed/optimized for interlaced images, while the other is not. vdvorsta's question is simply which would look better, all things being equal. In my opinion, MPEG-2 should look slightly better, as the codec supports more features, has a higher maximum bitrate (per spec), and there was supposedly a '20% coding efficiency' over MPEG-1. How that translates into real world video, I couldn't say, as I never encode in MPEG-1 anymore.

The 1.86Mb limit for MPEG-1 is just part of the specification. We all know how we'll everyone follows specs. It's often ignored in the real world. Doing so will not void your refrigerator warranty. It will not cancel your credit cards, nor will the MPEG police will not break down your door.

That said, if you need more than 1.8 MB, simply use MPEG-2. That's what it was designed for. If your player doesn't support the newer formats, I'd suggest an upgrade is in order

In regards to VHS vs. VCD, VHS has a higher vertical resolution than VCD. One of the TV repairmen/buffs on the forum set us straight on that some time ago, stating it produces somewhere around 400 vertical (can someone find the thread? I can't remember the number), where VCD, produces only 240. Just compare VCD to SVCD. There is no comparing them. I've seen store bought VCD's. They still do not look as good as a store bought VHS tape (at least for the first time it's played anyway..they are degradable afterall). VHS doesn't suffer from macroblocking, or bit shortage. Even a simple recording of broadcast looks far better on VHS, than VCD, simply because VCD chokes on all of the noise inherent in an analog signal.

CVD/SVCD on the other hand...

[Heavensent]

mpeg 2 can be interlaced,
mpeg 1 CANNOT be interlaced

so stick with mpeg 2, it has a better picture qulity.
but my advice whould be - go for svcd / cvd at least.
the qulity will be far better.

[DJRumpy]

Just as you can exceed the specification in MPEG-1, you can most certainly encode interlaced video. It would probably look horrible, but your encoder doesn't care what's in it. I would dutifully encode as you told it to, not caring for the content of the video. I agree. Stick with MPEG-2.

[DivXExpert]

How do you encode MPEG-1 as interlaced? I didn't think you could.

[DJRumpy]

You just feed it an interlaced source. VCD was designed for 352x240 (ntsc). Scale any interlaced signal captured at 480 vertical, and you automatically de-interlace it as a by-product of the resize (reduce by 2), by removing half of the fields (top or bottom.. I don't know which it cuts). There is nothing stopping you from feeding it a larger video source though (one with 480 vertical), which could also be interlaced. I don't know what the quality would look like though. I'm guessing the encoder would have a very hard time with the material.

EnNiS could probably tell you. He seems to do a lot of MPEG-1 encoding still, using xVCD.

[DivXExpert]

Not so. The frame will still encoded progressive. You will just see interlace lines.

now matter how low the bitrate of MPEG-2, if its encoded as interlaced, those interlaced lines will be sharp.

[DJRumpy]

The affect is the same. You still have an encoded interlaced frame, regardless of the flags on the output (progressive).

now matter how low the bitrate of MPEG-2, if its encoded as interlaced, those interlaced lines will be sharp.

Not sure where your going here...

[SatStorm]

Because you mention VHS, I like once again to post some things...

VHS is officially 352 X 288/240 active lines resolution.
SVHS is officially 352 X 576/480 active lines resolution.
In praxis it is not exactly this. It is more like: VHS is 300 active vertical lines, while SVHS is about 500 active vertical lines. That's why many say that VHS is 300 lines and SVHS 500 lines.
Also, that's the reason NTSC users used to prefer SVHS VCRs and Pal users sticked for so long with VHS ones. For NTSC, the SVHS picture was a huge improvement. For PAL, you couldn't see that much difference (same story with VCD and SVCD on mainstream PAL TVs, and imagine that with SVHS you don't have double VHS resolution like it happens with SVCD which is double (and more) the resolution of VCD!).
Anyway, that is history now (those days, you hardly find VHS VCRs, only SVHS ones)

The problem with (S)VHS is that it is an analogue format and when someone try to understand by thinking digital, ends up with wrong conclutions.
What really happens:

The active vertical lines per field are 144 PAL - 120 NTSC. But on any field there are equal non active lines.
2 Fields combine a frame. Those fields are in offset (up and down) position between them. So if a field has an active line, the next field has a non active in the same place. Because of the phosphor of our TVs, there is no replacement for this line so it stays for a second field also there.
This is a cheap but clever trick to make the picture look better on a TV Screen.

PCs, don't understand while grabbing active and non active lines. There is not a "no info" value in a capture. For the PC, the no-active line is a black active line. So what can do: We capture the fields seperate. But because those fields are in offset position (up/down), we capture fields with the full frame resolution. Then, we compare those 2 fields of the frame, and we reconstruct the active lines. That is what the encoders do, and that's why we have to capture full vertical resolution for better results.

There is also a second offset between each fields: The interlace offset (left - right). This is another subject, but this is the reason VCD looks blured compared VHS. This is what makes VHS sharper and that's why mpeg 2 created. It is far easier continue use interlace what you grabb than to de-interlace and encode progressive. Plus, it won't help for most TVs (TVs are interlace, only HDTV is progressive)

There are many - many people, can't understand this for VHS. The problem is that I don't know english enough to explain it in a good correct way. So, once in a while a flame war begins, like what is the true resolution of VHS, etc. If you understand the nature of VHS, with the correct combination of filters and the correct encoding method, you can produce amazing results. This is the hard way unfortunatelly. It is much easier to grabb to full CCIR 601 and encode with a higher bitrate. It is an overkill but you end up with a virtual copy of your source. For most people, that's ok.
I don't belong to this party, maybe because I am stupid and I don't choose the easy way. But, all this is what it makes it, a so wonderfull Hobby!
The bottom line is that if you don't understand this for VHS, you can never succeed good transfers on low bitrates....

[DJRumpy]

I don't suppose you could take another stab at this on-off setup again? It sounds like your describing typical field a/field b, with an interlaced signal (only one field displayed at a time), but I think I'm missing the point, because you indicate that their different in a significant way. Mind taking another stab at it?

Just on a side note, HDTV is capable of both progressive, or interlaced output. There seems to be some confusion among the newb's, or where the technology hasn't penetrated as far, that they are progressive only.

[bolta]

Hey all . . .

Just a comment regarding the relative quality of VCD v. VHS - here's a screenshot of a conversion I've just done. It was a VHS capture, at 480x576, resized to 352x288 using a "smart smoother" filter and the built-in resize filter in virtualdubmod.

Played on a PAL tv, I'll argue this quality is as good, if not slightly better, than the brand-new, only-played-once VHS tape it was taken from

Cheers,

B.

[bolta]

oops . . .

Let's see if the upload works this time . . .



B.