KVCD - a new standart?

[yossisht]

I have stumbled across a site called www.kvcd.net.
This site gives templates for the TMPGEnc software and claims for better image quality with less space consumption.
Did any of you have experience with this, does it worth the migration from the traditional SVCD format I am using or should I go with … what seems a better choice, the KVCD format.

I have a miniDV Sony DCR PC-110 which I convert the output to SVCD and show it to friends and family on their DVD's.

If you have any other tips on how to improve the quality of the output, I will be glad to hear about it.
====
Addon
====
Temper Temper
I did not know my first question will be such a "hit"
I just wanted to hear your recommendation about how to bring a digital photage shot by Sony DCR PC-110 to a Standalone DVD by using a standart 80 minute CD so I can send my 6 month kid videos to friend and family on the other side of the ocean ... thats all.
Standarts, Ego .... .... Come on!
=========================
Hopfuly my last add on to the subject
=========================
If anyone have the same problem as I.
I think I found what I need:
http://www.vcdhelp.com/forum/userguides/98177.php

Thank you SatStorm for this article, I think that this is what I needed.

[bbb]

nope - Strange resolutions and using MPEG1 with VBR is not a standard.

Techniques such as shrinking the video to take advantage of TV overscanning and using IVTC on film sources to make better use of bitrates is nothing new and is easily applicable to true supported standards such as SVCDs, CVDs, DVDs.

Personally, I have seen his samples and compared them to my own CVD samples and see no reason to switch to his nonstandard (which cannot be put on to recordable DVDs without reencoding and subsequent degradation in quality which inevitably results from reencoding).

--------------------------------------
Addenum (September 22, 2002):
--------------------------------------
It's funny that Kwag puts up a Half D1 and Full D1 template so he can claim support for DVD compatibility when someone questions his other templates that he often hypes. To diffuse some hype, first, his Half D1 template is the simply a CVD template--widely available and easily created by changing the standard SVCD template (from 480x480 to 352x480 for NTSC and using 48Khz for sound). Second, his Full D1 template is simply a DVD template--one already available with Tmpgenc and easily changeable.

This is another typical distractor reply by Kwag. He promotes his wierd resolution, wierd GOP structure, non-dvd compatible, K-(misc) templates for CDRs and claims that it is the best quality. Then when you press him why he doesn't reveal to potential users it's lack of DVD compatibility, he then tells you it does have DVD compatibility and to just use his OTHER Half D1 and Full D1 templates. However, he is not promoting his Half D1 and Full D1 templates on these forums, he is promoting his CDR templates as the best thing since the sliced bread. It's a bait a switch reply to your questions/concerns.

Next, his 1 CDR per movie templates just doesn't meet sufficient quality levels. I've seen his 1 CDR movie samples and they are not close to CVD/SVCD and definitely not DVD quality. What can you expect when you are using DVD resolution with half-VCD bitrates--nothing more than pure hype as usual when someone claims to fit 1 movie at great quality per CDR.

Overall, his templates are nothing special (except to clueless, guillable newbies who don't know what are bitrates nor how to adjust templates)--Kwag basically promotes templates that use a different bitrate from the the standard Tmpgenc template which ideally should be adjusted by individual users to their individual requirements (easily done with a bitrate calculator). Then he claims he is God. And then he ask for donations to his cult. I shudder to think how many have donated money to his cult.

Also, his wierd GOP structures is all hype. While his DVD source samples are good, the primary reason is because he uses clean, high resolution DVD sources and he uses inverse telecine. Using a standard CVD/SVCD template, one can easily create just as good samples. I've tested my own CVD/DVD-Compatible template and they yield just as good (clean, sharp, smooth) results.

While a having variety of templates is not necessarily a bad thing. He should publically disclose the non-standardability of his CDR templates and the inability for easy transfer to recordable DVDs without reencoding (and not just pretend they all are by simply pointing to his OTHER D1 templates). Also, his exorbitant requests for contributions is morally inappropriate by taking advantage of guillable newbies, especially since he's routing newbies from this site without really teaching them the basics of encoding and standards.

On second thought, taking away the newbies on this site may not be such a bad thing.

Nevertheless, I'm (and I'm sure others) just more than a little fed up by Kwag brainwashed newbies returning to this forum claiming they have found a video encoding god simply because they can fit 1 blocky-looking movie on 1 cdr and then telling everyone to change to this new "format"--which it is definitely not.

[Conquest10]

i've tried it. it's not worth it. xvcd is better. it took about 5 hours to finish a xvcd. using that kvcd it took about 50 hours.

[fladavpam]

Conquest10,

what settings do you use for XVCD? Do you use TMPGenc for encoding? I have wavered between XVCD and SVCD. On my TV you can't often tell much difference if the bitrates are high enough.

[Faceman101]

The guy who runs that site has been on these forums for a while promoting his templates. Some love it, some hate it.

All it does is break the standards, for the better or worse, you be the judge once you try it.

(I think it's nice to have varitity and I'm glad he's around so don't think I'm putting him down, but I do not use his templates.)

[Conquest10]

fladavpam
i just use the settings it says in the how to. resolution 720x480 at 2500 k/sec. yes i use TMPGenc. its the only one i've ever used. the video comes out perfect. much better than just regular vcd.

[kwag]

I have stumbled across a site called www.kvcd.net.
This site gives templates for the TMPGEnc software and claims for better image quality with less space consumption.
Did any of you have experience with this, does it worth the migration from the traditional SVCD format I am using or should I go with … what seems a better choice, the KVCD format.

I have a miniDV Sony DCR PC-110 which I convert the output to SVCD and show it to friends and family on their DVD's.

If you have any other tips on how to improve the quality of the output, I will be glad to hear about it.

Hi yossisht,
Your best bet is to go to the site and download some samples. If you like them, and they play correctly in your player, great!. If you don't like them, you can allways go back to SVCD. If you want to use something as compatible as a CVD or SVCD, you can try the SKVCD template. It will give you slightly better quality than a CVD, and slightly lower than a SVCD, but you'll gain more than 25% of space savings on your media.
If you want absolutely the best quality, and your player supports it, go for the KVCDx3. That will give you the same visual quality of a DVD, even viewed on a HDTV.

@Conquest10,
50 hours of encoding is a joke. That's not a template problem.

@bbb,
KDVD templates were made specifically to put on DVD. With the similar techniques used on the other KVCD templates. Only that you can put 4-5 hours on a DVD with the "Full D-1" template, or 7-8 hour with the "Half D-1" template. Please don't misinform people.

-kwag

[vitualis]

KVCD is not a format.

It is simply a variation of XVCD or XSVCD (these being non-standard S/VCDs).

Being non-standard, you can make X/S/VCDs look better (or worse) than otherwise compliant discs. The price you pay for this flexibility is that they are no longer guaranteed to play on stand-alone players (and most probably the compatibility WILL be lower overall).

Regards.

[kwag]

KVCD is not a format.

************** FORMAT ******************
NOUN: 1. A plan for the organization and arrangement of a specified production. 2. The material form or layout of a publication. 3. Computer Science a. The arrangement of data for storage or display. b. A method for achieving such an arrangement.


So vitualis, even if you don't agree, technically it is a format. If you meant "not a standard", then you are correct. ( for the time being )
Just like XVCD is called a format, XSVCD is another called format, and they are variations of their standard defined core ( VCD, SVCD ), so is KVCD. I would even dare to say that KVCD goes further than XVCD and XSVCD, if you take into consideration that XVCD and XSVCD only change resolution and bit rates. KVCD's change bit rate, resolutions, GOP and a Q. Matrix second to none. As for "standard", no, KVCD is not a standard. Keep your eyes open, you might be surprised one of these days

-kwag

[DazJWood]

I agree with the last post.

What people must be aware of is that KVCD is not a new format. For better representation it is just an XVCD (or XSVCD depending on encoding format). Really this site (www.kvcd.net) should make this more clear because it does read and claim to be a new format.

All these templates do is stretch the compliancy of the MPEG formats. Most people who have used TMPEGENC will have probably had a go at this themselves anyway. I have encoded many XVCD using 702 X 576 which gives a very high resolution comparable to the original DVD extract.

To be fair to Kwag the altered GOP settings he has applied does improve the amount you can fit onto a disc while retaining quality. I have used his templates on a number of my encodes to great success.

The best thing to do is to try them and find out what works for you and your machine. Certainly older machines may struggle with these templates. My Sony M35 will not play any MPEG1 in 702x576 but my Decca (Dansai clone) will play everything I chuck at it.

[vitualis]

Fair enough.

X/S/VCD is a "format" insofar that it is based on S/VCD and isn't compliant.

However, there is no real agreement of what is an XVCD or XSVCD except for the fact they they are based on MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 respectively and they they are off specifications. How far you go is limited by practical issues ("does it work?") rather than any limitations. Without a system of standardisation, a "format" isn't very meaninful (that is why you can't have an "XVCD" compatible player).

I would even dare to say that KVCD goes further than XVCD and XSVCD, if you take into consideration that XVCD and XSVCD only change resolution and bit rates. KVCD's change bit rate, resolutions, GOP and a Q. Matrix second to none. As for "standard", no, KVCD is not a standard. Keep your eyes open, you might be surprised one of these days

I definitely wouldn't say that. YOU claim that XVCD and XSVCD only change resolution and bitrate but that is taking a very narrow view of X/S/VCD. My definition of an X/S/VCD is simply one that isn't compliant (e.g., changing filesystem structure, non-standard headers, and yes, GOP would all fit into this category).

It is fair to say that your templates are a WAY of making a particular type of XVCD for a particular purpose.

I doubt that you are going to convice any regulatory body of adopting your templates as standards any time soon, however...

Regards.

[Conquest10]

@Conquest10,
50 hours of encoding is a joke. That's not a template problem.

what's that supposed to mean?

[DazJWood]

@Conquest10,
50 hours of encoding is a joke. That's not a template problem.

I think it's plainly obvious what that means. I can certainly vouch for the fact that the templates certainly do not take 50 hours to code a movie with. The high resolution templates if set to Highest Quality (Motion Search) will take a lot longer to encode but not 50 hours!!! I always set mine to High Quality this achieves equally the same results for a lot less time.

I still do not agree Kwag that your templates are a format! Does that mean every XVCD that I have encoded with different settings is a new format!! No ! I don't think so!! XVCD and XSVCD are what your templates are. Nothing more and nothing less!

You have come up with some great templates containing some good GOP settings. Perhaps you ought to calm down and stop trying to claim credit for a new format. Accept you have some great templates, but there are a lot of people out there who have come up with great templates for XVCDs and XVCDs too and they don't let it go to there head do they.

[Conquest10]

do you just load the template or do you have to do some changes to it? cuz i just loaded the template and it took about 48 hours.

[snowmoon]

Not taking into account the non-spec resolutions, I don't believe there is anything that those format buy you over standards like SVCD or CVD. His latest template claimes 45 minutes full frame and 60 minutes widescreen on a single 80 minute disk. Whopiee, I can do that with my eyes closed using multipass encoding on SVCD.

The GOP is so non-standard it is crazy. You could have a key frame as infrequently as once every 2-3 seconds. The standard calls for at least 1 per second. Can you just not see the quantization buildup? Q-Matrixes can be altered without breaking the standard, I use non-standrd matrices in CCE all the time to try new things. Droping the audio is fine for most things, but music and stereo seperation will be severly diminished.

And yes I have seen you samples and was not impressed.

It's a prefrence what template to use, but don't claim it a new format like VCD.

[kwag]

I still do not agree Kwag that your templates are a format!

You're right! The templates are not a format, the format is reflected in a template
That means that technically any encoder that can use the Q. Matrix and the modified GOP, is encoding KVCD!. Have you ever seen any Q. Matrix that looks remotely like ours?. No. Had you seen, before KVCD was done, any encoder using a GOP of 1,48,3,1 ? Again. None. Has that GOP ever been defined in a VCD, SVCD, XVCD or XSVCD? Never. Not even closely. Have you ever seen any TMPEG template ever released that had that GOP? No way! So it is a format, because there is a huge "difference" in settings, compared to the defined standard. And yes, if you tweak your settings and make your own XVCD, you are making a different format. Of course, within the constraints of VCD, XVCD, etc. I never claimed a new '"standard", I've only refered to KVCD's as a different format.

-kwag

[kwag]

And yes I have seen you samples and was not impressed.

Maybe there are new people in this site, which haven't seen any samples, and don't know about KVCD.
So here are a couple links, to refresh your memory, about samples that don't impress you.

The full screen sample fits 45 minutes on one CD-R, and the Wide Screen sample fits 60+ minutes on one CD-R.

Full Screen: http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/farscape-kvcdx3-mpeg1.mpg
Wide Screen: http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/matrix-kvcdx3-mpeg1.mpg

Preview on WinDVD, PowerDVD, or burn to CD-R. DO NOT preview in WMP.

Now, if you call that bad quality, something is way wrong with you

-kwag

[DazJWood]

I've never heard such a load of boll**ks in my life.

Jeez guy get off your throne!!!

You have just answered all your questions. NOTE: YOU have just answered all your questions!!!

I'm afraid to say your GOP is nothing new. I've seen loads of XVCD and XSVCD using similar criteria no "huge difference" as you put it. So your not even close remarks falls vastly short. I have a couple of techy programmer friends whose knowledge of MPEG1 and MPEG2 formats and encoding methods far out does my knowledge and they have been encoding since VCD first appeared (remember the Amiga CD32, they did the movie intros for two of the Psygnosis games!! [not true MPEG I hastened to add but on the forefront of that technology]). I've seen tons of discs they have done with nr DVD quality encoding, which sparked off my interest.

So come on!!! We accept you have tweaked some settings and arrived at a good template, but come on...... enough's enough. You have no right to ask people for contributions for these templates!! And you really are just making yourself silly with all this blatant hype over nothing. The majority of regulars reading these posts can see through all your claims. You have a good template, (which I have used), but thats all. You have nothing ground breaking that hasn't already been done.

Why don't you come up with a new high quality low storage compression technology!! Then you are welcome to sing your own praises and be full of yourself!!

[snowmoon]

Have you ever seen any Q. Matrix that looks remotely like ours?. No.

Looks like a more aggressive version of the default, nothing special here.

Had you seen, before KVCD was done, any encoder using a GOP of 1,48,3,1 ? Again. None. Has that GOP ever been defined in a VCD, SVCD, XVCD or XSVCD? Never.

VCD and SVCD have MAX values for total GOP length of less than 20. The reason being is that longer your GOP is the more buffering a mpeg-2 decoder chipset must do to fully decode any one picture in a stream. This was a compromise based on years of video and electronics development. I frames are there for a reason. They help to diminish rounding errors that are part of lossy DCT encoding.

Actually before your "templates" were around many .avi formats were lowering thier quality and bitrate by extending the distance between keyframes. This is an old and well trodden trick.

[cruiser80]

I have used the kvcd templates and am quite happy with the results. If someone out there has better settings then I'd be happy to know about them rather than just hearing "mines better than yours".

If those who do get great results would kindly make their settings available as Kwag has then I'd be happy to give them a go and make my own decision.

I am still a relative newbie and dont really have enough available time to keep changing settings over and over again. To have someone make templates available from their own trial and errors is very much appriciated by people like me.

So if your going to bag someone elses settings then share your own so that we can decide for ourselves.

[kwag]

Looks like a more aggressive version of the default, nothing special here.

Exactly!, you couldn't have described it better. But it was optimized to work with the long GOP, and that does make it special.

VCD and SVCD have MAX values for total GOP length of less than 20. The reason being is that longer your GOP is the more buffering a mpeg-2 decoder chipset must do to fully decode any one picture in a stream. This was a compromise based on years of video and electronics development. I frames are there for a reason. They help to diminish rounding errors that are part of lossy DCT encoding.

And there are less I frames in KVCD's for a reason. The matrix/GOP combo is what gives you the smaller mpeg files, while maintaining the quality. Plus credit goes to TMPEG's creator too, for the excelent CQ encoding mode.

Actually before your "templates" were around many .avi formats were lowering thier quality and bitrate by extending the distance between keyframes. This is an old and well trodden trick.

Again, not with a specialized and optimized GOP/Matrix combination. That's all they did. Nothing special there

-kwag

[wway]

Kwag,

Keep up the good work. Dont stop. Here's why:

1. VCD just doesnt cut it
2. SVCD is ok...if you like 35 min. /disk...I dont

I see KVCD as another form of XVCD & XSVCD. Anybody can make a (X)(S)VCD, but you have created a website and a forum where your ideas can be discussed and tested. Good job.

The only problem i have with KVCD is that a lot of DVD players will not play it correctly. BUT, thats not your problem. Hopefully, manufacturers will make players that can play more non standard formats. The fact that you are ORGANIZED and have NAMED your format, can only help.

I just dont understand how anyone can see what you have done as being wrong or improper.

By the way, I have moved from XVCD to CVD. My players wont play KVCD. (i have not tried ALL the KVCD templates though)

wway

[kwag]

Kwag,

Keep up the good work. Dont stop. Here's why:

1. VCD just doesnt cut it
2. SVCD is ok...if you like 35 min. /disk...I dont

I see KVCD as another form of XVCD & XSVCD. Anybody can make a (X)(S)VCD, but you have created a website and a forum where your ideas can be discussed and tested. Good job.

The only problem i have with KVCD is that a lot of DVD players will not play it correctly. BUT, thats not your problem. Hopefully, manufacturers will make players that can play more non standard formats. The fact that you are ORGANIZED and have NAMED your format, can only help.

I just dont understand how anyone can see what you have done as being wrong or improper.

By the way, I have moved from XVCD to CVD. My players wont play KVCD. (i have not tried ALL the KVCD templates though)

wway

Don't worry, I won't stop
If your player supports SVCD (CVD), then try the SKVCD. It's the same resolution 352x480 as CVD, but you'll get way longer play time per CD, and slightly higher quality than a CVD.

-kwag

[cybermage26]

Kwag is a great guy that constantly goes out of his way to help people, by supplying alterations of templates to try (which indeed have come in handy for alot of people) guiding people through things..

Im proud of him for even holding back his temper while you idiots try and flame his generousity.

How many of you have created your own website (paying the domain name fees) and managing that site, the templates, and answering questions for people in trouble on the forums?

Kwag decided to think outside the box, ask questions.. and thanks to his curiousity we all can now access these new hybrid templates. They are GREAT in many ways, they are PERFECT for suiting certain needs!

He has indeed put in alot of effort into his workings.. if you dont like the templates then f**k off.. leave Kwag alone, dont discourage him from trying help noobs out there like you all.

LASTLY.. many of the KVCD templates are better than SVCD (and also allows smaller file size, its no lie).. I know this and anyone that has bothered trying it out for themselves would know this too... you all seem to ignorant to actually open up your narrow little minds and giving them a go, instead of listening to other people who are releasing aggresion onto Kwag for no apparant reason (its not his fault you have no friends..heh).

...

[cybermage26]

Also.. for all you people saying that KVCD is only a variation of a XVCD and nothing new... you deserved to be slapped.

Thats like walking up to the creator of DVD and saying "your a moron, DVD is nothing new, it's only a variation of SVCD you copycat.."

[kinneera]

DVD used a new type of media, defined a new type of filesystem, defined a new disc structure, was defined and implemented by an industry coalition (not one person!) and certainly came well before SVCD. It most definitely was not just a variation of an existing entity.

KVCD most certainly is nothing more than a variation of an existing concept, the XVCD. I personally have no issue with him sharing it, but to claim it is a new format that deserves standardization is patently ridiculous. As has already been mentioned, tweaking GOPs and q-matrices is nothing more than taking advantage of an existing toolset. If you do it well, more power to you. Frankly, I learned how to fit 60 min. of a widescreen movie on one disc at very good quality long ago and the effort involved seemed so unremarkable that sharing it would pretty much be redundant based on what I perceived to be the already existing body of knowledge.

As I see it, the original question has been quite clearly answered in that KVCD is absolutely not a standard. This thread is merely going down the same old draw-and-quarter kwag versus suck-his-c*k debate.

[adam]

Also.. for all you people saying that KVCD is only a variation of a XVCD and nothing new... you deserved to be slapped.

KVCD is not a variation of XVCD it IS an XVCD. Anyone who argues otherwise is just spouting semantics. For all intents and purposes if you create a video disk that uses the vcd file structure and mpeg1 but it does not comply with the VCD standard than it is an XVCD. This is not a bad or good thing it is simply a fact.

Kwag has not created a new standard or a new format, at least not in the typical sense of the word, ie: VCD, SVCD, DVD. He has created a TMPGenc template which creates an XVCD with a certain goal in mind; more playtime per disk in equal or better quality than standard formats. Whether or not it achieves this goal is a subjective matter so all you can do is try it for yourself.

Thats like walking up to the creator of DVD and saying "your a moron, DVD is nothing new, it's only a variation of SVCD you copycat.."

Yeah except that DVD came out before SVCD, oh and also that they use completely different file structures, media, laser colors...

[kwag]

@cybermage26,

Don't waste your words here. As you can see, the three musketeers have finally arrived
It's always the same old story. The bla.bla,bla,bla with words, and never provide concrete proof.
I believe I've provided "proof of concept' every time around this loop of posts.

Shame on you guys, because this is the only thing I always see from you guys. But what can you expect of kids, ah!

So go ahead and post your comments. Baldrick and I will be very happy, as he will get more hits here at vcdhelp.com and i'll get more over at kvcd.net thanks to your posts
It's just a circus every time I see their posts :P

-kwag

[adam]

It's always the same old story. The bla.bla,bla,bla with words, and never provide concrete proof.
Shame on you guys, because this is the only thing I always see from you guys. But what can you expect of kids, ah!

Proof? You honestly want me to prove that your template doesnt produce a standardized format? Do you really deny this?

I gave the absolute most objective opinion of your template that I could possibly give, and I even gave it credit. Do you have a problem with me telling people to try it for themselves?

Don't you think you are being a tab bit overly defensive?

[PigOnWing]

It's always the same old story. The bla.bla,bla,bla with words, and never provide concrete proof.

Ok.

Here's your own list of DVD players that are / are not compatible with KVCD.

See those reds?
See these yellows?
See this list made of an enourmous number of roughly 90 models?
See these roughly 20% of these tested models that don't play it?
See these roughly 40% of these tested models that 'work, but'?

That's proof.

See those roughly 40% models who do work with your Templates? These are models which support nonstandard encodings.

The day these models will bear the 'KVCD' logo is the day I'll grow hair on my palms.


Again: There's nothing wrong with you creating Templates which make an MPEG stream which is different than VCD/SVCD/CVD spec. MPEG was never meant to be used only within VCD spec. VCD/SVCD/CVD are strict standards, which expect a certain, particular, well defined MPEG stream.

You want to impress us with how good the MPEG stream looks? Great, we're impressed. You want us to impress you further on, with how great DivX files look? As it's just the same: Hey, it's still MPEG! It's MPEG-4! And it uses a much, much, much longer GOP! And optimized for clarity!

It's not VCD. It's not SVCD. it's not CVD.

Need to read it again?
It's not VCD. It's not SVCD. it's not CVD.

Players who will read it, are well-equipped to deal with nonstandard situations. Nothing more, nothing less. Got one? I'm happy for you. I'm not going to stard spreading a new VHS standard just because my own player has a function, that when feeded a cleaning-cassette it shows nice colours instead of garbage, and thus I'll be making a 'new standard for colour effects' and call it PVHS.

Your MPEGs look great. Your MPEGs look wonderful. For someone intending to play them on his PC, which, once having an MPEG1/2 codec, will handle any falvour of MPEG1/2 stream you'll feed it, it's a wonderful tool. In that case, there's also absolutley no necessity to adhere to 352/480/702 horizontal on 240/288/480/576 vertical. You can do it just using a (not less standard) 640x480, 480x360 or 384x288 resolution. You're lucky enough to have a standalone that support off-VCD-spec MPEG streams? Great for you. Use it. Enjoy it.

Just don't call it a 'standard'.

And not a 'format', while we're at it. You didn't define anything, regarding the format. The format of a VCD has been defined by Philips, and goes way beyond the MPEG stream - it goes to the CD structure itself. You've 'defined' nothing there, you're just feeding a well-known format with an alternative MPEG stream.


I appreciate your efforts. I appreciate your good will. I appreciate your willingnece to help others. I appreciate your mission in life, to make better standards than the existing ones.

That said, you're still, way, way, way off what you claim to be doing. And while [not] doing so, you're actually misleading people, making them believe that they create something which they don't: a VCD.

It isn't a throne you're sitting on, it's just a thorn.

-- Piggie