Above what resolution size to use mpg-2?

[perfection]

I was told that at 320 x 240 and 352 x 288 i should be using mpg - 1 coding to avoid macrovision blotches esp on action camera scenes.

Assuming i do not have to create a VCD or SVCD - that is i intend to keep them as mpeg - 1 program or mpeg - 2 program only please guide me as to what resolution and above should i use mpeg - 2 and what corresponsing bitrates would be optimal rather than over kill

Thnaks all

[ZippyP.]

Mpeg1 and 2 at the same resolution and bitrate will look the same. As for recommended bitrate, it depends on the resolution.

[jimmalenko]

Mpeg1 and 2 at the same resolution and bitrate will look the same. As for recommended bitrate, it depends on the resolution.

This is interesting, because I have heard from people far more knowledgeable than myself that this isn't always the case. The theorum goes that MPEG-1 is actually (subjectively) better at 352 x 240/288 than MPEG-2. Unfortunately I cannot back this up with any facts

[thecoalman]

There's a guide at the bottom of this page: http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/capture/intro.htm

[ZippyP.]

The theorum goes that MPEG-1 is actually (subjectively) better at 352 x 240/288 than MPEG-2. (

Some interesting points regarding mpeg 1 and 2 from a google session:

MPEG-1 was finalized in 1991, and was originally optimized to work at video resolutions of 352x240 pixels at 30 frames/sec (NTSC based) or 352x288 pixels at 25 frames/sec (PAL based), commonly referred to as Source Input Format (SIF) video. It is often mistakenly thought that the MPEG-1 resolution is limited to the above sizes, but it in fact may go as high as 4095x4095 at 60 frames/sec. The bit-rate is optimized for applications of around 1.5 Mb/sec, but again can be used at higher rates if required. MPEG-1 is defined for progressive frames only, and has no direct provision for interlaced video applications, such as in broadcast television applications.

MPEG-2 was finalized in 1994, and addressed issues directly related to digital television broadcasting, such as the efficient coding of field-interlaced video and scalability. Also, the target bit-rate was raised to between 4 and 9 Mb/sec, resulting in potentially very high quality video.

and...

Both schemes are fundamentally similar-based on motion compensation and DCT encoding-but their performance differ depending on the characteristics of the video. MPEG2 typically performs better when encoding interlaced video with a large object or camera motion; however, when encoding progressive scanned video it may not achieve better results over MPEG1, and in many instances it is actually inferior.

So the theory is that mpeg1 is better at low res. progressive and mpeg2 is better at higher res. interlaced. Of course in real world application there are many things that can affect the comparison. The quality and characteristics of the source, the capture hardware (if that's being used) , the encoding software, settings, playback device etc.

Personally, I think most people would have a very tough time telling the difference.

[Capt.Video]

.... to avoid macrovision blotches ....

So, you wanna get rid of Macrovision by encoding at a magic resolution? No can do. Good luck trying. And with the intent of the post, Im not willing to help, because it would make us look like a bunch of DM pirates.

[tdan]

.... to avoid macrovision blotches ....

So, you wanna get rid of Macrovision by encoding at a magic resolution? No can do. Good luck trying. And with the intent of the post, Im not willing to help, because it would make us look like a bunch of DM pirates.

To be fair, if you read this in the original context, I am pretty sure that the OP is trying to avoid macroblocks in fast action video.

To the OP:

"Macrovision" is a company that provides various copy protection methods to various media distributors.

"Macroblocks" are the ugly blocky areas that you get in poorly encoded video.

Dan

[lordsmurf]

MPEG-1 is optimized for anything under 2-3Mb/s and MPEG-2 for anything at or above that. But this is not as important as the other factors.