anyone have success with svcd's at 352x240?

[ibanez78]

i've been trying to make svcd's at 352x240 but the quality has always been terrible, the picture is blurry, no matter what bitrate i use, anyone have any ideas?

[Sefy]

Well, I should hope people have had success, cause SVCD's at 352x240 is what my Templates are based on, have you tried the SxVCD or SeVCD ? They have been fully optimized, and some people say they look even better then VCD at times.

[Vejita-sama]

I've done it (Sefy's templates) but now I just use the standard 480x480, I do make VCDs at 352x480 sometimes thou As for quaility the main factor is the quility of the source. Is this a DVD rip or a DivX file? Also are you using CBR or 2pass VBR (or even CCE 5pass VBR).

[ibanez78]

i have tried sefy's templates and my source is dvd

[JJamez]

Can somebody explain what the advantage is to using 352x240 as opposed to say 352x480?

The file sizes are the same, so that's not it.

Theoretically, I guess it would seem as though you could encode at a lower bitrate using 352x240 and have no added blockiness, thus smaller files - in my experience though, it may reduce blockiness, but really degrades the overall picture sharpness significantly since the picture is stretched and interpolated on a standalone. Who cares if you can fit a movie on one CD if it ends up looking like shit?

The one benefit I do find is the encoding time is significantly reduced, but I'd much rather let the PC run overnight and preserve as much quality as possible. That said, it still is a major plus to encoding at lower resolution.

I guess 352x240 would also eliminate interlacing automatically, which would be a plus if you're watching on a PC - but encoding interlaced at the higher resolutions looks fine on a standalone.

Am I missing anything else?

[Sefy]

I can't really tell you how 352x480 would be better, as I find it weird that the highet of the movie is larger then the width, and I think it would play weird on the PC with the picture all stretched up, but I can't tell from my experience as i've never done it.

I've always used 352x240 (NTSC) because it seemed the most logical choice, and to consider that VCD which is a very old standard that works is based on it made it look sensible to me.

As for 352x480, I think people use it because it gives the entire scan lines which is supposed to improve the quality of the total image, but, I guess will have to wait for someone else to verify it.

[Anonymous65]

Yes, in 240 mode, you're using only half of the video information, one field. In 480 mode, you're using both fields, giving you almost twice the vertical resolution.
However, there are some other factors to consider. In 240 mode, you get only every other field which makes fast motion a bit jerky since you're skipping every other field. But, there are no interlacing artifacts. In 480 mode capture, you have to keep the file interlaced, or deinterlace for PC playing. Deinterlacing ads another artifact like blur in high motion scenes, unless you use special deinterlacing filters. So, in 480 mode fast action looks smoother, but adds a bit of blur if you deinterlace. There is also a third way of using 480 mode capture by using a 2:1 vertical reduction. This will blend two fields together giving higher vertical detail while the file saved is only 240 pixels. This mode is close to the 480 deinterlaced mode while still using 240 pixels in the vertical plane. This mode gives you smooth video, but adds some blur in high motion scenes because of the deinterlacing in the 2:1 reduction process. Still, for the sharpest 240 mode video, this is the best way to go.

[ibanez78]

so has anybody made 352X240 svcd's that look good?

[AntnyMD]

All of my XSVCDs are based on Sefy's templates with my tweeks and they look outstanding ... the only issue I have with them is with compatibility outside of my Apex player. It's hard to live life with an Apex, as it plays everything, so you can never tell about portability. My portability issues are going to be answered one way or another when my portable SVCD player arrives shortly after the holiday.

I'd much rather make VCD-rez XSVCDs precisely because of the MAJOR benefit of being able to use 3:2 pulldown, which in itself helps to enhance the quality of your video disc. The other advantage is a VCD-rez XSVCD with 48kHz audio is totally portable to DVD in the (near) future.

My XSVCD issues usually surround whether I should use 2-pass VBR, or MVBR (which I guess is esstentially CQ_VBR @ 100%). I like MVBR but I like the advantage of constant/controlled bitrate letting you know how much video will fit on a CD.