mini-dvds

[NuebieN]

I noticed not too many ppl encode in mini-dvd format. I am a newbie to all this but I was wondering if you could alter the resolution on a mini-dvd and lower the bitrate on the audio? This would, in turn, make it a svcd recognized by the player as a dvd. Why would you want to do this you might be thinking. Well, you wouldn't have to add letterboxing to the video. This would be good for a few reasons. HDTV users that have the widescreen could make movies that would work on there tv and also standard tvs. Perhaps you could have the same quality on less cds due to the space you save. It would be nice if the dvd players would just add letterboxing to a svcd. The reason this is an interest to me is that I will eventually be purchasing a widscreen tv and all my vcds I make now to use on my standard tv will not work. I realize that once I do have a widescreen, I can make svcds that will work on it but will be eggy looking on any standard tv.

[vitualis]

1. A same length movie on same capacity media will be of LOWER quality on a miniDVD compared to a SVCD. The reason is because miniDVD must be written on UDF if it even is to have a chance of being recognised as DVD, while SVCD is burnt in MODE2 Form2. That is, on a 74min/650MB CD, the space available on a miniDVD is 650MB while the space available for a SVCD is 740MB.

2. Letterboxing isn't really an issue. Most good VCD/SVCD players will have some sort of "zoom" function to fill up the screen on a widescreen TV. You could make anamorphic SVCDs but this isn't standard. However, it should still work as long as your DVD player+TV can fix the aspect ratio (most widescreen TVs should be able to do this).

3. All standard S/VCDs will work on a widescreen TV for the same reason all standard VHS will work on a widescreen TV. If the S/VCD fills up the entire 4:3 screen (just like on VHS), then on the widescreen display, you will have two black bars on the left and right sides. If your S/VCD is letterboxed widescreen, your DVD+TV should be able to zoom in on the relevant section -- filling the full widescreen display.

4. miniDVD is extremely poorly supported. There are only 2 or 3 discrete models of DVD player that can play these.

IMHO, I don't think miniDVD is a viable format at all unless you are lucky enough to have one of those DVD players that can play it. I would just stick to standard VCDs and SVCDs.

Within a couple of years, I would imagine proper DVD authoring would become affordable and this would become a moot argument.

Regards.

[AntnyMD]

NuebieN:

The whole point of miniDVD/cDVD is that it is possible, not that it is ultimately useful.

[vitualis]

Beautifully stated!

Regards.

[Kdiddy]

Well I have to differ with one of the above mentioned points...because miniDVD is all I do...

"1. A same length movie on same capacity media will be of LOWER quality on a miniDVD compared to a SVCD. The reason is because miniDVD must be written on UDF if it even is to have a chance of being recognised as DVD, while SVCD is burnt in MODE2 Form2. That is, on a 74min/650MB CD, the space available on a miniDVD is 650MB while the space available for a SVCD is 740MB."

I beg to differ here, I burn mine in mode2 and works out just fine...I also use same bitrates for my video as I WAS doing on my SVCD so the quality is exactly the same as the SVCD....so to answer your point of lower the bitrate from the original DVD...yes it can be done on both audio (soft encode) and Video (take ya pic on mpeg2 decoder)....However, they are correct points 2 & 3...as far as 4) The models that are capable store bought are discreet, but there are several popular models that can have their firmware hacked to play miniDVDs like the model I have...mine was purchase at Wal-Mart which in the US is not to hard to find.....now true in point, when DVD burners & media begin to get cheaper, yes it will become moot....but until then I am quite happy with the miniDVDs I have now.

[vitualis]

Kdiddy, even if did burn your miniDVDs in MODE2 rather than UDF (wow, it worked? how interesting!), the issue is still the same.

You can ONLY burn data CDs into MODE2 Form1 (not MODE2 Form2) in which you still only have the 650MB limit on 74min/650MB discs.

Sure, if you limit your file sizes to 650MB for both miniDVD and SVCD then you will have the same quality. However, for the SVCD, you wouldn't be using the full capacity of the media then. What I am suggesting is that on any given disc and a fixed length of video, I can use a higher bitrate for SVCD than miniDVD due to the intrinsic difference on how these two formats are burnt.

Regards.

[nfl2k2]

how does minidvd compare to svcd? there's nothing on this site about it.

[Kdiddy]

again man I beg to differ...I have successfully fit 76 mins worth miniDVD data on my 80 min disk....using udf mode 2/xa in NERO it doesnt say anything mode2 form 2...however when I take that same exact mpg file...and load it into nero for SVCD burning...takes up the EXACT same amount of space on the disk....even if you use the bitrate calculator provided by this website....leaving all settings the same, you only get an average diference of 80-100 bits....I honestly dont think one can tell a HUGE amount of difference tween video at 1900 bps as oppose to 2000.....so the point being still the video quality would be NOT grossly lower as you made it out to seem..thats all I was trying to say..

nfl: compare in what way?? I say better just for that fact that you CAN make better menu button, subtitles, etc. if you want...and of course the biggie for me is the Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-09-08 21:10:42 ]</font>

[vitualis]

Yes, but you didn't mention the SIZE.

Mode2/XA for data = Mode2 Form1 = 700MB on a 80min CD.

For course if you burn the same MPEG as a SVCD it will take the same size. That is obvious. What I am saying is that when you burn as a SVCD, you've also got more capacity, so your MPEG could have been bigger.

Okay, according to Bearson's bitrate calculator (can download from doom9's site):

76min of video, 224kbit/s audio, 80min/700MB CD-R:
miniDVD (i.e., 700MB capacity): 1033.5 kbit/sec for video
SVCD (i.e., 800MB capacity): 1213.2 kbit/sec for video

That is, approx. 200 kbit/s bitrate difference. I would say that is quite signficant.

Regards.

[kinneera]

Isn't there a distinction between filesystem (UDF, FAT, etc...) and the underlying mode of data written to the disc? The filesystem should only contain pointers to the location of the data on the disc, and should not care how the data is actually written. An analogy would be to say that if you use the FAT filesystem, only one cluster size is acceptable, which obviously isn't true.

Now assuming the UDF filesystem specifies a certain structure for linking files to the underlying data, it theoretically shouldn't matter how that underlying data is actually written to the disc, as long as the pointers to that data are correct. Nonetheless, this is probably a hit or miss proposition for standalone DVD players.

[nfl2k2]

oh, so svcd looks better, cool

[kinneera]

Unless you really like your 5.1 audio, there's really no point in making miniDVDs rather than SVCDs, at the bitrates Kdiddy suggests. The video will be the same quality as SVCD anyway. You're just more likely to find out that your player won't play it.

[Kdiddy]

well isnt it generally accepted that one would not encode SVCD below 1500 bps??....I agree to make a miniDVD at those bitrates is useless, well ANYTHING with a bitrate that low is useless for me...I wont encode less than 1800...so at that range again no I do no think thats a HUGE difference in quality...its personal thing and I think Im allowed to voice my opinions, Im not going to argue over quality difference with you as it is purely a subjective subject...I was trying to let the original poster know a difference in quality would not be as large as your statements may it sound like as he get the quality difference tween 2000 bps & 1150 bps...which I think we can agree is not the case...so I was trying to let him know that yes it may be a lil lower in bitrate, but not a drastic amount, he should be up to him to determine whether he can notice any quality difference between the 2.....but like Kinneera says (scary we actually agree) you can make an equally quality miniDVD as SVCD....Ok Im wrong on the media, yes your media usage might be smaller on the miniDVD side, but FOR ME, my average SVCDs were 3 disks, which is the same amount my miniDVDs take....so again not a huge amount of wasted disk, well not to the tune of 2-3 extra disk as you made it sound...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-09-08 21:36:17 ]</font>

[vitualis]

Well, that particular example was to demonstrate your "76min worth of miniDVD data" on an 80min CD. I agree that a bitrate that low is probably useless. However, there is a reasonably LARGE difference in average bitrate between miniDVD and SVCD -- much more than 80-100kbit/s.

Again, for equivalent LENGTH of video on a miniDVD vs. a SVCD, you can use an average bitrate of about 13-15% higher for a SVCD. This is filling a disc to capacity, which you should always aim for with MPEG-2 type video. I'm of the opinion that a 13-15% increase in average bitrate (for SVCD) is quite significant. The quality difference won't be massive, but certainly noticable.

As for the extra discs, I haven't mentioned this anywhere, and neither has anyone else. I have only talked about same disc, same length video.

Regards.

[Kdiddy]

no you didnt say extra disk...but since you are saying that SVCD uses a disk more economicly speaking than a miniDVD, then logic dictates that at same bitrate, you need more amount media space for miniDVD to accomadate the same length of movie....and thus why I was saying that since it was taking 3 disks for me to do a SVCD movie anyway at bitrates around 1800-2000...at the same bitrate it was taking 3 disks for miniDVD as well, although on the 3rd disk it may be using 13%-15% more, which can be discounted cuz it still a matter of using 3 disk for both formats at same bitrates which will have the same quality...thus I was not differing with you about quality as I said, thats a subjective matter, but I was differing with that implied sense that a LOT OF EXTRA media would be needed to maintain that same quality...yes I am discounting the "always filling to disk capacity" idea because it is all about quality to me(cant speak for anyone else)...so if even if movie A is shorter in time than movie B, Im still doing them at 1800+ bps (which normally for me is always 3 disks) cuz I care about quality not media consumption, media is cheap...and I have just purchased my 2nd miniDVD capable player which is a 3 disk changer, so swapping disks is not an issue for me.....plus you exaggerated the # of players that are capable as well, there a lot more than 2 or 3...check capability list on this site.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-09-08 23:30:19 ]</font>

[vitualis]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-08 23:17:49, Kdiddy wrote:
no you didnt say extra disk...but since you are saying that SVCD uses a disk more economicly speaking than a miniDVD, then logic dictates that at same bitrate, you need more amount media space for miniDVD to accomadate the same length of movie....</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I think that you are interpreting this far too much... and incorrectly.

1. Whether you use 1 disc, 2 discs or 3 discs is irrelevant in my argument as long as you use the SAME number of discs for both your SVCD and miniDVD.

2. The average bitrate for your SVCD can be 13-15% higher than you miniDVD for the same length movie over ALL the discs. At 1800 kbit/s (for miniDVD) you could have used a bitrate of about 2050 kbit/s for SVCD (same number of discs, same length movie).

3. I have not exaggerated the number of players that can play miniDVD. I said discrete players. The same model with a different name slapped on it is still the same player. Furthermore, the capability list on this site is quite inaccurate.

Regards.

[Kdiddy]

Nooooo you are missing mine, or choosing to ignore it because..your original statement..

"1. A same length movie on same capacity media will be of LOWER quality on a miniDVD compared to a SVCD."

That is an algerbraic experssion, the constants here are length & capacity, and the varible being quality/bitrate...thus if we make the quality/bitrate same in both formats, which CAN BE DONE, then the length or capacity HAS to change, assuming we are talking about the same movie in both formats..the length can't change leaving, so the capacity now becomes the variable..how is that incorrect, simple mathematics...I AM SUGGESTING TO HIM, TO ENCODE THE MOVIE AT THE SAME BITRATE as you would SVCD, so now quality is no longer the issue, but capacity is...so now you need 13%-15%(as you say) more capacity for the same quality & length movie in miniDVD format as oppose to SVCD...no matter if the movie 15 mins at @ 800 bps, or 2 hours @ 2000bps, you need more 13-15% more media capacity for miniDVD....this is why I was saying that since most of my SVCDs at my liking of bitrate resulted in an average of 2.5 disks, moving to a miniDVD that now uses average of 2.875 disks (2.5*1.15)is no different..it is still needs 3 total disks....secondly you said..

"4. miniDVD is extremely poorly supported. There are only 2 or 3 discrete models of DVD player that can play these. "

this a completely different statment than this.

"I said discrete players. The same model with a different name slapped on it is still the same player."

So dont get upset because you didnt type what you meant, I can only comprehend what you write not whats in your head...but it still would lead a "newbie" to the field to believe that in all the amounts of DVD players that there only 3 PLAYERS that will play this format when that is not the case...Im sure when most people dont try to find out if their GE or APEX Players were made by the same manufacturer before purchasing, most "newbie" type people will assume that Apex & GE are different PLAYERS, not different models with another name slapped on it.

[NuebieN]

What about the letterboxing? There are bits of info representing this useless blackness on a svcd and not on a mini-dvd. Therefore a mini will be of better quality at the same bitrate as a comparable svcd. (ie: more info goes to the movie instead of the blackness)

Also, which feel free to correct me cuz I still don't really understand how some of this works, doesn't dvds (store bought) play at 24 fps? And doesn't the dvd player convert this, on the fly, to 29 fps for standard tvs? Therefore a mini-dvd could be made at 24 fps. That's 5 frames that doesn't need to be there and therefore smaller size.

[Kdiddy]

Well both could be applied to both formats...on 16:9 movies, I clip off the "black bars" with DVD2AVI when I decode the video from the original VOB file...so there are no "black bars", from this point...no matter what is you do SVCD/miniDVD, you will not be wasting bits of black space....now when its done because the resolution frame size I choose, the black bars will reappear, but that is only empty space not information that has been encoded...as for the fps, it works out the same way...I think you are getting confused with the names SVCD & miniDVD, the bottom line is that both formats use mpeg-2 video.....I use the same exact decoding & encoding process for both formats...its just a matter of what you do to your "new" mpeg-2 video once you have it...either mux with mpeg-2 audio & burn as a SVCD....or mux w/ AC3 audio, build, & burn as a miniDVD are the big differences between the 2 formats....some will also say resolution is but I was doing my SVCD at same resolution Im doing miniDVDs right now...

[NuebieN]

what resolution are you doing them in?
I thought you could only do 480x480 on svcd?
So I could make a 720 x 480 svcd?

[Kdiddy]

You can do them in what ever resolution you choose...that is just the "recogized" standard....its really a matter of whether or not you standlone DVD player will accept NON standard or xSVCD format...I wouldnt go to 720x480 unless its a short video, because the bigger the resolution, the more bits you will need to maintain good quality...I do 480x480 or 352x240, it all depends on what kind of quality Im shooting for...most of the time, I do 352x240.

[kinneera]

Keeping the vertical resolution at 480 will have a huge impact on the video quality. This is the primary basis for the difference in image quality between VCD and SVCD, as well as the difference in bitrate (assuming standards).

A good middle ground is 352x480. It won't look right on a compter, but all playback devices will display it at a proper 4:3 aspect ratio, and it looks much better than 352x240.

[nfl2k2]

woah, I thought 720x480 would give me better quality... that's what i've been doing svcds in. can you ajust the resolution in cce? i've been using tmpgenc. btw, I have the full version of cce now, so i'm gonna try dvd2svcd tonight and need some professional pointers

[NuebieN]

nfl2k2, could you email me? I wanna ask you something about that cce full version. Don't think the moderator would aprove.

[nfl2k2]

sure, i'll email you in 5 min

[kinneera]

Yes, 720x480 will give you the best quality. All we're saying is that it will fit less video on a disc, and is not SVCD standard.

[NuebieN]

I'd say that was some pretty good resonse for my first post. I think I'm gonna stick with the svcd 480x480 just so I can let friends borrow movies and have a better chance it will play on there dvd players. I was also relieved to hear from vitualis that they will play on the widescreen with the zoom function. Thanx all.

[vitualis]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-09 00:23:25, Kdiddy wrote:
That is an algerbraic experssion, the constants here are length & capacity, and the varible being quality/bitrate...</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Surely if you are mathematically minded you would see that the statements "a same length movie on same capacity media will be of LOWER quality on a miniDVD compared to a SVCD" is mathematically equivalent to "A same length movie on same capacity media will be HIGHER quality on a SVCD as compared to miniDVD".

The fact that you are NOT OPTIMISING your miniDVDs or SVCDs is completely beside the point.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>"4. miniDVD is extremely poorly supported. There are only 2 or 3 discrete models of DVD player that can play these. "

this a completely different statment than this.

"I said discrete players. The same model with a different name slapped on it is still the same player."</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, if you interpret it this way, that is up to you. I'm sorry, but they again are completely identical. Maybe I should have but discrete in bold. In any case, my point stands, very few DVD players support miniDVD. If you point people to the list on VCDHelp, at least WARN them that is is very inaccurate. If you go into an electrical goods store with a miniDVD and try out all they have to offer, you'd be lucky to find one that works

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>Dont get upset because you didnt type what you meant, I can only comprehend what you write not whats in your head...but it still would lead a "newbie" to the field to believe that in all the amounts of DVD players that there only 3 PLAYERS that will play this format when that is not the case...Im sure when most people dont try to find out if their GE or APEX Players were made by the same manufacturer before purchasing, most "newbie" type people will assume that Apex & GE are different PLAYERS, not different models with another name slapped on it.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't assume anything. I try to type only the fact (which I have done) and to put my statement so that at least the sentiment is correct for those that don't read it fully. Your argument on the syntax of language is completely pointless.

Regards.

_________________
Michael Tam

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vitualis on 2001-09-10 09:00:30 ]</font>