what type of vcd have I created??

[poopyhead]

If you can find another way to put an MPEG-1 file on a CD-R, that will play on almost every standalone DVD player, please let us know. I'm pretty sure thousands will like to hear you

well then, you basically tell people to burn kVCDs as xVCDs, yet you still believe kVCDs aren't xVCDs??? until you find away to burn kVCDs as something else, then don't say kVCDs are anything more than xVCDs

I won't discuss this anymore. You just don't want to accept the facts above.

errr...you don't want to discuss this anymore because you have no way to get around your kVCD being nothing more than a non-compliant VCD.

Use regular MPEG-2 encodings and put ~2 hours on a DVD(+-)R, or use KDVD(KVCD) parameters and put ~5 hours on a DVD(+-)R with the same quality.

hah, that's a joke! same quality, huh? don't even try to compare kVCDs to SVCDs, stick with blasting standard VCDs. Anyone who has watched original DVDs and properly made SVCDs can easily see the softness of kVCDs.

You obviously have a reading handicap . Go back and read the post. I'm talking about KDVD not KVCD

again, i have no idea what you're talking about. look above in your quote "or use KDVD(KVCD) parameters and put ~5 hours on a DVD(+-)R with the same quality"

btw, if a divx standalone player ever becomes mainstream, you can kiss your kVCD goodbye. just ask anyone and they will all say divx has a much better quality:compression ratio than you can ever tweak from mpeg-1.

Where have you been lately ??? Standalone DivX players already exist! The problem is that DivX is not standardized yet as MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, and you'll be needing to update your firmware constantly. Just search the net and see how many people are having an "Unwonderful" time playing DivX on their standalone, when they try to play a file that was encoded with MPEG-4(Low), MPEG-4(high), DivX 3.x, DivX 4.x, DivX 5.x, XviD x.x, and then audio on some is mpeg, ac3, mp3, golly what a mess
( But KVCDs play in 99% of DVD/VCD players ) And you can kiss your KISS DVD player good bye. Actual brand name
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/021022/047810.html

errr....again, read my post. i said mainstream, NOT exist. btw, MPEG-4 is just as much standard as MPEG-1/2.

[mikk]

We've established here that KVCD is simply another XVCD.

Calling it anything else but XVCD is just silly. All it does is confuse people who haven't heard of it, and annoy the hell out of people who know what it really is.

KVCD should really be called something like "kwag's XVCD". But kwag seems to be bent on having his "KVCD" title and dreams of large manufacturers officially supporting specific XVCD formats that hardly anybody uses. Not to mention the claims of DVD quality and quality that is as good as DivX. Somebody must have some really rose-tinted glasses on... Some people just love to dream don't they.

I don't see too many people agreeing with kwag here...

[johneboy]

But kwag seems to be bent on having his "KVCD" title and dreams of large manufacturers officially supporting specific XVCD formats that hardly anybody uses.

actually APEX looked into Kwags KVCD format for there DVD models to escape the licensing fee's for the VCD format support.

[poopyhead]

actually APEX looked into Kwags KVCD format for there DVD models to escape the licensing fee's for the VCD format support.

1) is there an article about it?

2) even so, did apex use it? and since kVCD is just another spin off of VCD (and still uses MPEG-1), not sure how apex can avoid VCD licensing fees

[johneboy]

1) is there an article about it?

there was but its no longer a valid link... Unfortunately the Internet Time Machine didnt cache it either...
http://news.apexdigital.com/news?=article1106200203

[SansGrip]

No one is saying that KVCD is no longer "XVCD" and a template. It is still XVCD and it is basically still a template and always will be.

With this logic one could argue that DVD is simply XSVCD, since the only important differences are the bit rate and the resolution (and that you load a different template into TMPGEnc). Of course no-one would claim this, since both DVD and SVCD are defined standards. But a lack of recognition by an official standards body is the only real difference between SVCD/DVD and VCD/KVCD.

In fact I would argue that there's no such thing as an "XVCD". Once you go outside the very strict VCD requirements then you are no longer creating a VCD. What you're creating is an MPEG-1 stream that falls within no particular standard requrements.

If you were to call any non-VCD-compliant MPEG-1 stream an "XVCD", then you must call any non-SVCD-compliant MPEG-2 stream "XSVCDs", and this would logically include DVDs. Likewise, you must call a non-DVD-compliant MPEG-2 stream -- including SVCDs -- an "XDVD".

In this sense, then, a KVCD-compliant MPEG-1 stream is no more an "XVCD" than an SVCD-compliant MPEG-2 stream is an "XDVD".

But as I've said before all this is really irrelevent, because what matters most is the results, not the labels .

[vitualis]

No one is saying that KVCD is no longer "XVCD" and a template. It is still XVCD and it is basically still a template and always will be.

With this logic one could argue that DVD is simply XSVCD, since the only important differences are the bit rate and the resolution (and that you load a different template into TMPGEnc). Of course no-one would claim this, since both DVD and SVCD are defined standards. But a lack of recognition by an official standards body is the only real difference between SVCD/DVD and VCD/KVCD.

Absolutely not, and if you claim as such, it belies a lack of understanding of what makes makes an "XVCD" or "XSVCD".

The difference between DVD and SVCD is far far from just bitrate and resolution. Do you not also count the medium, the filestructure, the logical strucutre of the disc, etc?". Each of these is equally as important as just the source media file settings.

To say that "the only real difference between SVCD/DVD and VCD/KVCD is the lack of recognition by an official standards body" is ludicrous.

An "XVCD" or "XSVCD" generally still refers to some specifications. After all, a spoon can be a "non-compliant VCD" as well but no one is going to call it an "XVCD". What I refer to as an "XVCD", and indeed, the only meaning that matters, is when you create a disc as if it were a VCD but use either non-standard settings and/or non-standard source media files.

Similarly, an "XSVCD" is when you create a disc as if it were a SVCD but use either non-standard/settings and/or non-standard source media files.

Trying to argue that "there is no such thing as XVCD" is silly. Obviously it is "not a standard", but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What is agreed upon as "XVCD" and "XSVCD" is still really quite clear.

If you were to call any non-VCD-compliant MPEG-1 stream an "XVCD", then you must call any non-SVCD-compliant MPEG-2 stream "XSVCDs", and this would logically include DVDs.

Absolutely not. I think here is the problem. You KVCD supporters have seemed to place importance in the video stream above all other things. There is much more that goes into a VCD and SVCD and DVD than just the video stream.

I don't call any non-VCD-compliant MPEG-1 stream an "XVCD". Absolutely not. People may use that as a short-hand only, but it is obviously not the same thing. XVCD refers to the whole package -- an non-compliant VCD disc that is authored as if it were a VCD.

An XVCD created with an MPEG file encoded with KVCD settings is not surprisingly an XVCD. Why? Because you are authoring the disc as if it were a VCD but with non-standard/compliant media files.

It is not a "KVCD". Otherwise, perhaps I should start calling the XVCDs I make with my own settings "vVCD" or "vitualis video-CD"?

As for Apex looking for "KVCD" as an alternative to VCD for licensing issues, it has predicatable come to nothing. Why? KVCD is not a format. It is basically "XVCD" if you want to make a video disc. And what is "XVCD"? That is basically, using non-standard settings/source media files but authoring as if it were a VCD -- and if Apex wants to support this, it cannot get around paying royalties for VCD support.

Regards.

[kwag]

Trying to argue that "there is no such thing as XVCD" is silly.

There is not. It's an industry given name to reference a non-standard VCD. It was never defined.

Obviously it is "not a standard", but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What is agreed upon as "XVCD" and "XSVCD" is still really quite clear.

Thanks Michael, you admit it yourself . The same with KVCD. It's not a standard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

As for Apex looking for "KVCD" as an alternative to VCD for licensing issues, it has predicatable come to nothing. Why? KVCD is not a format. It is basically "XVCD" if you want to make a video disc. And what is "XVCD"? That is basically, using non-standard settings/source media files but authoring as if it were a VCD -- and if Apex wants to support this, it cannot get around paying royalties for VCD support.

Regards.

Oh yes they can. The only thing ANY manufacturer has to do is SVCD file structure with MPEG-1. Now they are supporting an off shot ("SKVCD sounds familiar" ) with quality almost equal to DVD and they don't have to pay a dime

-kwag

[SansGrip]

What I refer to as an "XVCD", and indeed, the only meaning that matters, is when you create a disc as if it were a VCD but use either non-standard settings and/or non-standard source media files.

If I were to take a large Access database file, rename it AVSEQ01.DAT, place it within a standard VCD file system, and burn it to disc then I would have, by your definition, an XVCD. Clearly this would not be the case.

What's more it is of course possible, with some standalones, to play an MPEG-1 file within an SVCD file structure, and an MPEG-2 file within a VCD file structure.

If I burned a KVCD-compatible stream to disc as a VCD, then I suppose it would be an XVCD. If it burned it as an SVCD, I suppose it would be an XSVCD. Which is it? If I were to hack the header enough to make it appear as a VOB file, and included it within a DVD-compliant file structure, would it then be an XDVD?

No standalone can claim to play an "XVCD". The word encompasses far too many variables, and any unit capable of playing all possible MPEG-1 streams (and hence "XVCDs") would be very cool but very unmarketable. Since the concept of "XVCD" is so nebulous, vague and ultimately meaningless I find it simpler to look upon such "non-standard" MPEG-1 streams (whatever file system they are placed within to fool standalones into playing them) as just that: MPEG-1 streams that do not correspond to defined standards.

As I said earlier this is almost certainly a matter of semantics, and it may well be the case that calling the KVCD templates "XVCD" (or "XSVCD" or "XDVD") might be the least controversial (if not the most accurate) approach, though "KVCD" is just as easy to type and about as meaningful .

It is not a "KVCD". Otherwise, perhaps I should start calling the XVCDs I make with my own settings "vVCD" or "vitualis video-CD"?

I think perhaps you should -- that would be much clearer than simply calling it yet another XVCD .

and if Apex wants to support this, it cannot get around paying royalties for VCD support.

That would depend on exactly how the patent is worded. Since the Whitebook specification requires precise values wrt video and audio bit rate, resolution, and a host of other variables besides file structure, it may well be possible to claim that a disc which bears no resemblance to the specification aside from the file system it is on is not a "VCD" as covered by the patent. I've never read it, am not a lawyer, and could very easily be wrong, but it would seem strange for Apex to announce even the possibility of including KVCD support without paying VCD-related royalties if their lawyers hadn't first closely examined the patent issues.

But this is getting very off-topic, and to paraphrase myself once again: who really cares what it's called as long as it makes your movies look good and your spindle of CD-Rs last longer?

Regards,
SansGrip

[vitualis]

What I refer to as an "XVCD", and indeed, the only meaning that matters, is when you create a disc as if it were a VCD but use either non-standard settings and/or non-standard source media files.

If I were to take a large Access database file, rename it AVSEQ01.DAT, place it within a standard VCD file system, and burn it to disc then I would have, by your definition, an XVCD. Clearly this would not be the case.

Yes it would be. If you could somehow manage to burn a data file as Mode2 Form2 sectors on what appears to be an "MPEG track" and then put pointers in the ISO filesystem to that data (i.e., create it as if it were a VCD), then it would be an "XVCD" -- abeit a pointless one.

If I burned a KVCD-compatible stream to disc as a VCD, then I suppose it would be an XVCD. If it burned it as an SVCD, I suppose it would be an XSVCD. Which is it?

"KVCD-compatible" doesn't have any meaning but I suppose that you mean an MPEG encoded using "KVCD" settings.

It is really very simple.
(1) non-VCD-compliant media file used as source file to create a disc as if it were a VCD --> XVCD
(2) non-SVCD-compliant media file used as source file to create a disc as if it were a SVCD --> XSVCD
(3) non-DVD-compliant media file used as source file to create a disc as if it were a DVD --> "XDVD".

It is not the source media file that matters. It is the process to which you create the disc.

No standalone can claim to play an "XVCD". The word encompasses far too many variables, and any unit capable of playing all possible MPEG-1 streams (and hence "XVCDs") would be very cool but very unmarketable. Since the concept of "XVCD" is so nebulous, vague and ultimately meaningless I find it simpler to look upon such "non-standard" MPEG-1 streams (whatever file system they are placed within to fool standalones into playing them) as just that: MPEG-1 streams that do not correspond to defined standards.

I completely agree with you but somewhat irrelevant to the debate at hand?

and if Apex wants to support this, it cannot get around paying royalties for VCD support.

That would depend on exactly how the patent is worded. Since the Whitebook specification requires precise values wrt video and audio bit rate, resolution, and a host of other variables besides file structure, it may well be possible to claim that a disc which bears no resemblance to the specification aside from the file system it is on is not a "VCD" as covered by the patent. I've never read it, am not a lawyer, and could very easily be wrong, but it would seem strange for Apex to announce even the possibility of including KVCD support without paying VCD-related royalties if their lawyers hadn't first closely examined the patent issues.

Perhaps, but you are forgetting (or perhaps don't know) some very pertinent facts on how VCDs are structured. VCDs are not just "MPEG video on a data disc", and neither are SVCDs or DVDs. The physical and logical structure is paramount in importance as well.

Since you are creating "particular specification" XVCDs and XSVCDs with your MPEG files encoded using KVCD settings, it is implicit that the player itself must be able to play VCDs and SVCDs.

And remember, by XVCD I am talking about authoring a disc as if it were a VCD but with non-standard settings or media files.

The only way around this is either:
(1) You abandon the VCD/White Book schema altogether (for example, simply putting MPEG files onto a CD-ROM) -- i.e., you should drop the letters "VCD" altogether. However, such a player then would no longer be able to play standard VCDs at all, and implicity would not play any XVCDs either (i.e., things which LOOK like VCDs but are non-standard in some way). However, this isn't the way you make your "KVCDs" is it?

(2) The player knows about compliant VCDs and analyses the disc to see if it is perfectly compliant. If it is, then it refuses to play the disc. If it detects some abberation from the standards (i.e., an XVCD), it attempts playback. Of course, this solution is ridiculous.

You simply have to face reality. There is no way a manufacturer could claim "KVCD" compatibility (meaning XVCDs using KVCD settings MPEG files) without having to pay royalties for VCD playback.

But this is getting very off-topic, and to paraphrase myself once again: who really cares what it's called as long as it makes your movies look good and your spindle of CD-Rs last longer?

I care because I'm a moderator at these forums I have seen many times where beginners have come to believe that "KVCD" is some sort of new format.

@ kwag:

vitualis wrote:

Trying to argue that "there is no such thing as XVCD" is silly.

There is not. It's an industry given name to reference a non-standard VCD. It was never defined.

It is not an "industry name". It is a name given by the early VCD authoring enthusiasts (i.e., before your time kwag) to something that at the time didn't have a name.

The common meaning of this term, I have explained quite clearly and I don't think anyone would disagree with me. An "XVCD" is basically a video disc that is authored as if it were a VCD but with non-standard settings or source media files. Obviously, the "non-standard" part means that there cannot be a specific definition.

However, authoring something as a SVCD would clearly NOT be an XVCD. Similarly, authoring something as a DVD would clearnly NOT be a XVCD. Just so, making a disc that is simply a video file on a CD-ROM is not an XVCD either.

The same with KVCD. It's not a standard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

I didn't say it didn't exist! Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that KVCD:

1. is not a video disc format (which you have tried to claim at one point or another). Using an MPEG source file encoded with KVCD settings makes it an XVCD (which you or others have tried to claim does not exist).
2. is not a video format (the video format is MPEG and MPEGs encoded with KVCD settings are still standard MPEG files)

KVCD is a collection of MPEG encoding settings.

Oh yes they can. The only thing ANY manufacturer has to do is SVCD file structure with MPEG-1. Now they are supporting an off shot ("SKVCD sounds familiar" ) with quality almost equal to DVD and they don't have to pay a dime

Have you even vaguely thought about the ramifications of this? This means that such a player will not play back VCDs and also not playback XVCDs (again, XVCDs being non-standard discs authored as if they were VCDs).

Since most people still use MPEG-1 based KVCD templates to create XVCDs as opposed to XSVCDs, it would simply mean that such players would not play back these discs.

Regards.

[davemcg37]

can anyone tell me why Kwag's "templates" don't work on my toshiba sd210e with films encoded with them. i pm'd kwag about this and never got a reply???

[kwag]

[
I care because I'm a moderator at these forums I have seen many times where beginners have come to believe that "KVCD" is some sort of new format.

According to the definition of "Format" in the dictionaries, KVCD is format:

A plan for the organization and arrangement of a specified production.
The material form or layout of a publication.
Computer Science.
The arrangement of data for storage or display.
A method for achieving such an arrangement.

tr.v. for·mat·ted, for·mat·ting, for·mats
To plan or arrange in a specified form: They formatted the conference so that each speaker had less than 15 minutes to deliver a paper.
Computer Science.
To divide (a disk) into marked sectors so that it may store data.
To determine the arrangement of (data) for storage or display.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=format

Want more definitions, or you plan on writing a new "Format" definition to change the dictionaries

-kwag

[davemcg37]

kwag, you still haven't anaswered my question! i dont care or want to know about the technicalities, i just wanna know why your "templates" dont work on films i do to play on my toshiba sd210e!

[SansGrip]

If I were to take a large Access database file, rename it AVSEQ01.DAT, place it within a standard VCD file system, and burn it to disc then I would have, by your definition, an XVCD. Clearly this would not be the case.

Yes it would be.

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one .

"KVCD-compatible" doesn't have any meaning but I suppose that you mean an MPEG encoded using "KVCD" settings.

That's exactly what I mean. I don't find "KVCD-compatible" to be any less meaningful than "VCD-compatible". Both define a particular subset of all possible MPEG-1 (or -2) streams structured in a particular way on a disc.

No standalone can claim to play an "XVCD". The word encompasses far too many variables, and any unit capable of playing all possible MPEG-1 streams (and hence "XVCDs") would be very cool but very unmarketable. Since the concept of "XVCD" is so nebulous, vague and ultimately meaningless I find it simpler to look upon such "non-standard" MPEG-1 streams (whatever file system they are placed within to fool standalones into playing them) as just that: MPEG-1 streams that do not correspond to defined standards.

I completely agree with you but somewhat irrelevant to the debate at hand?

I don't think so. My point was that an "XVCD" is simply defined as "any MPEG-1 stream burned as a VCD that does not precisely match the Whitebook specifications", in roughly the same way that -- to extend your analogy -- an "xspoon" is any piece of cutlery you can't eat soup with. Both terms are equally inaccurate and unspecific and thus, I would argue, essentially meaningless. This is what I meant when I claimed -- admittedly a trifle vaguely -- that "there is no such thing as an XVCD".

While "XVCD" or "XSVCD" may or may not be appropriate labels for KVCD (and I think the debate could rage forever ) in my opinion they are neither particularly helpful nor enlightening labels. Perhaps, as someone pointed out earlier, they should more correctly be called "kwag's XVCDs", but this is too long-winded for me. Since one of the great virtues of hackerdom is laziness, I'll just write "KVCD" .

The player knows about compliant VCDs and analyses the disc to see if it is perfectly compliant. If it is, then it refuses to play the disc. If it detects some abberation from the standards (i.e., an XVCD), it attempts playback. Of course, this solution is ridiculous.

More ridiculous things have been done in the name of royalty-avoidance .

You simply have to face reality. There is no way a manufacturer could claim "KVCD" compatibility (meaning XVCDs using KVCD settings MPEG files) without having to pay royalties for VCD playback.

I never claimed they could. I merely said it might be possible. I was sticking my head into someone else's argument and that's never wise .

I care because I'm a moderator at these forums I have seen many times where beginners have come to believe that "KVCD" is some sort of new format.

Well that's obviously not desirable. Perhaps an agreed-upon definition could be worked out and posted on the web, then a simple link would be all the explanation needed. Though I fear such a definition would not be easy to obtain .

Regards,
SansGrip

[SansGrip]

can anyone tell me why Kwag's "templates" don't work on my toshiba sd210e with films encoded with them. i pm'd kwag about this and never got a reply???

Your player may not be compatible with KVCDs, or you may be burning them incorrectly. Try looking for your player in the compatibility list at kwag's web site.

Without more information it's difficult to pinpoint your problem. If you were to sign-up at the KVCD forums you would find many people who could help you figure out what's wrong .

[kwag]

kwag, you still haven't anaswered my question! i dont care or want to know about the technicalities, i just wanna know why your "templates" dont work on films i do to play on my toshiba sd210e!

Why don't you try searching the KVCD.Net forum?? I'm pretty sure you'll find an answer there. I can't answer that because I dont have a toshiba player.

-kwag

[Dodzzz]

IMO, KVCD is only a template for creating optimized MPEG streams.

then you burn those KVCD optimized MPEG files for making XVCDs using VCD authoring program and still within the VCD structure.

[davemcg37]

i realise you dont have a toshiba but seeing as how its your "creation" i thought you would be able to answer my simple, basic question. however i will try to sort it out for myself in YOUR forum, cos i am really interested in converting my dvd's to MPEG using your TEMPLATE if you say its as good as it is!

[davemcg37]

PS, sansgrip thanx for the advice, i'llhave a look

[kwag]

i pm'd kwag about this and never got a reply???

I'm sorry if I didn't answer your PM. I only check PM's many times a day at KVCD.net, but not here. I just keep an eye on "KVCD" related posts on the forums, and try to answer questions and give correct definitions to incorrect discussions

-kwag

[vitualis]

@ davemcg37: try to post your question in a new thread -- either here or at the KVCD forums.

@ kwag: We've had this same "format" argument before and you always try to use semantics. Your dictionary "definitions" are irrelevant. Obviously what I meant was that beginners have come to believe that "KVCD" is a format in the way "VCD" or "SVCD" is a format. KVCD is not not a "format" in that regard.

If I were to take a large Access database file, rename it AVSEQ01.DAT, place it within a standard VCD file system, and burn it to disc then I would have, by your definition, an XVCD. Clearly this would not be the case.

Yes it would be.

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one .

If you prefer.

"KVCD-compatible" doesn't have any meaning but I suppose that you mean an MPEG encoded using "KVCD" settings.

That's exactly what I mean. I don't find "KVCD-compatible" to be any less meaningful than "VCD-compatible".

No, "KVCD" compatible doesn't have any meaning because an MPEG file cannot be "compatible" with KVCD. It can only be encoded with KVCD settings.

An MPEG file can be "VCD compatible" if it is structured in such a way so that it will be compliant if used in the VCD disc format.

I don't think so. My point was that an "XVCD" is simply defined as "any MPEG-1 stream burned as a VCD that does not precisely match the Whitebook specifications", in roughly the same way that -- to extend your analogy -- an "xspoon" is any piece of cutlery you can't eat soup with. Both terms are equally inaccurate and unspecific and thus, I would argue, essentially meaningless.

Perhaps we have slightly different definitions, but my definition of an "XVCD" is somewhat more generic: An XVCD is a video disc that has been authored as if it were a VCD but with non-standard settings or non-standard media source files.

As far as I'm concerned, if it has been authored to look like a VCD, it doesn't matter what the media source file actually is. Hence, putting an MPEG-2 source file but authoring it as a VCD will still create an XVCD (as opposed to an XSVCD). Or perhaps, authoring an MPEG-4 file onto a vidoe as if it were a VCD (i.e., really off-spec and most-like will not play on anything) would make an XVCD. The XVCDs most people make are pragmatic solutions -- there is no point making something that won't play. But that doesn't mean that something truly wacky (your data base file) will invalidate it from XVCD-ness.

The important thing is that the disc has been "authored as if it were a VCD".

Something would arguably not an XVCD if it were authored as if it were something else (e.g., SVCD, DVD).

Perhaps, as someone pointed out earlier, they should more correctly be called "kwag's XVCDs", but this is too long-winded for me. Since one of the great virtues of hackerdom is laziness, I'll just write "KVCD" .

I can accept this.

However, there needs to be some standardisation then. The reason I maintain that "KVCD" is not a video disc format is because there is no defined suggested way to put the KVCD-encoded MPEG files onto the video disc. Do you author it as a XVCD or and XSVCD?

As it stands, KVCD are settings for encoding the MPEG only -- not a strict defined way of putting it onto a disc. If it is defined, "KVCD" will still be a type of "XVCD" (or perhaps "XSVCD") but is will arguably then also be a type of "disc format" that is based on S/VCD. At the moment it is rather nebulous.

The player knows about compliant VCDs and analyses the disc to see if it is perfectly compliant. If it is, then it refuses to play the disc. If it detects some abberation from the standards (i.e., an XVCD), it attempts playback. Of course, this solution is ridiculous.

More ridiculous things have been done in the name of royalty-avoidance .

However, I think Apex has made its commercial choice by cutting off VCD compatibility.

Well that's obviously not desirable. Perhaps an agreed-upon definition could be worked out and posted on the web, then a simple link would be all the explanation needed. Though I fear such a definition would not be easy to obtain .

Yes, I agree. I don't think a definition is that hard to come up with -- however, I think the "KVCD" community needs some set direction. What is the goal? What are the milestones?

From how I see it (as someone who is quite aware of KVCD but not intimately interested in it), there appears to be no standardisation at all. Everytime there is a debate on KVCD, there appears to be yet another template that does something magical. I have a long memory and it seems to me that not ALL of those previous templates could have been that good (otherwise, why the new ones?)

Perhaps it would be useful to:

1. give specific and definite names to the known good templates and then keep them fixed. Yes, you sacrifice flexibility with that template but the name suddenly becomes a whole lot more meaningful
2. shortlist the templates -- having lots of templates may be cool, but it is easier for the end user (and indeed, anyone thinking of making specific software or hardware compatibility) if there are only a handful, each with an obvious purpose
3. don't "name" templates that are a work in progress! -- reserve the names for things reach "final" status. Work-in-progress templates should be made clear
4. And of course, standardise the disc format.

It has been and is a pleasure discussing this with you SansGrip.

[SansGrip]

That's exactly what I mean. I don't find "KVCD-compatible" to be any less meaningful than "VCD-compatible".

No, "KVCD" compatible doesn't have any meaning because an MPEG file cannot be "compatible" with KVCD. It can only be encoded with KVCD settings.

Unless you define KVCD to mean -- as we seem to be slowly agreeing here -- an MPEG-1 or -2 stream encoded with parameters within the KVCD "specification" and authored in such a way as to be readable by as many standalone players as possible. In that sense, "KVCD-compatible" has as much meaning as "VCD-compatible". It's only possible to call something "compatible" with something else if that something else is clearly defined. If you see what I mean .

The reason I maintain that "KVCD" is not a video disc format is because there is no defined suggested way to put the KVCD-encoded MPEG files onto the video disc. Do you author it as a XVCD or and XSVCD?

At the moment the recommended authoring method is to burn MPEG-1 streams as if they were VCDs, and MPEG-2 streams as if they were SVCDs or DVDs depending on the template used (correct me if I'm wrong, kwag). This seems to provide the greatest compatibility with existing standalone players. That said, a number of people use header hacks etc. in order to author in a "non-standard" way that is more suitable for their particular player.

As it stands, KVCD are settings for encoding the MPEG only -- not a strict defined way of putting it onto a disc.

Strictness is really the antithesis of the KVCD philosophy, which brings me to another thought: the term "KVCD" is really an overloaded expression, and this could be what's causing so much confusion and friction.

While KVCD does mean "a certain subset of MPEG-1" it also serves as a label for the philosophy itself, which is to ignore any and all defined standards provided that ignoring them does not break compatibility with the majority of popular standalones. It is only by reexamining in a skeptical manner (by which I mean in an open-minded way with no preconceptions) existing beliefs and practices that kwag and others have been able to produce extremely watchable MPEG-1 and -2 streams with previously unheard of compression ratios.

However, I think Apex has made its commercial choice by cutting off VCD compatibility.

I think they made a big mistake, but that's an argument for another thread .

Yes, I agree. I don't think a definition is that hard to come up with -- however, I think the "KVCD" community needs some set direction. What is the goal? What are the milestones?

It's very simple. The goal is to produce high-quality encodes on as few discs as possible. Our milestones are when someone, through a combination of preprocessing and encoder-tweaking, manages to fit a particular movie of a given length and "genre" onto fewer discs than we thought possible, while maintaining a high level of quality.

Everytime there is a debate on KVCD, there appears to be yet another template that does something magical.

It seems recently that we've been making significant advances, with a new technique for improving quality, increasing compression or making size prediction more accurate being discovered every week or so. At the moment things are quite chaotic, with no-one really knowing what the "best" methods are.

That said, there are always "canonical" templates available for download at kwag's site that use the "last known good" optimizations. Anyone straying into the fast-moving development areas of the forum should know what they're doing and be prepared for things to change often. It's fun, though .

I have a long memory and it seems to me that not ALL of those previous templates could have been that good (otherwise, why the new ones?)

Hopefully each new template is better than the last. During the (occasional) moments of slowness we sometimes wonder if we've reached "the end" where no more improvements are possible, but then we're always proved wrong. Sometimes this happens because someone discovers, for example, a better GOP structure, sometimes because of improvements in new versions of TMPGEnc, and sometimes because of a new technique in preprocessing. Sometimes settings that were used in past templates turn out to work very well when combined with something in the new templates, and testing starts all over again.

But we're not just churning out new templates for the sake of it. What we're doing is continuously trying to improve the process so that we can make the best possible encodes using as few discs as possible.

shortlist the templates -- having lots of templates may be cool, but it is easier for the end user (and indeed, anyone thinking of making specific software or hardware compatibility) if there are only a handful, each with an obvious purpose

In fact there really aren't that many templates that are in common use. One is 352x240 and designed for one-movie-per-disc, with a special "LBR" version for very long movies. The remaining templates (352x480, 528x480 and 704x480) are really designed for the same thing, but which is used would depend upon the length of the movie and how hard that particular movie pushes the encoder. While it might be possible to get a slow-moving 120-minute movie on one disc at 704x480, other times one has to drop down to the 352x480 or even 352x240 template to get reasonable quality on one disc. Some movies, of course, simply won't go on one disc (yet ).

Which template gets used also depends on that person's definition of "good quality". I tend to be fairly demanding and so usually don't use a very high-resolution template like 704x480 for one-disc encodes, but on the other hand find 352x240 way too soft. I'd sooner put the movie on 2 discs. Another variable is the TV set the movie will be viewed on: those with HDTVs tend to require significantly higher quality than those with regular analog TVs.

But I do believe you're right: the situation is quite confusing for anyone new to the scene. The problem is that everyone's so busy testing the new concepts that no-one really has time to sit down and sort it all out. But it is IMO something that needs to be done next time we find ourselves in a quiet moment .

Regards,
SansGrip

[Nelson37]

1. KVCD is not even KVCD-compatible. IF it IS a distinct format, why are there several, completely different methods which produce a "KVCD"?

2. KVCD no less meaningful than VCD? You have got to be kidding. When I see a dozen or more DVD players with "KVCD" on the faceplate, I can accept this statement. Since that is not the case, this is just grandstanding.

Look, bending the specifications and achieving something better is great. I applaud ANYONE who is investigating methods to make better Videos on CD. However, to me KVCD is just an XVCD, and is in fact a moving target as was mentioned. There have been radical GOP alterations, differing Quantization matrixes, different claims (some reasonable, some outlandish and complete BS), methods which only give good results with letterboxed video, etc., etc. Everytime I check the site there has been some significant change or addition to something which is still called a "KVCD". What made a "KVCD" six months ago is totally different than what makes a "KVCD" today. If you want to define a new "format" or "standard", you really need to standardize your format.

Anybody remember SeVCD? I could tell you what one is, was 2 years ago, last year, and today. The author never claimed it was anything more than a specific type of XVCD.

I will keep checking your site, and when your methods are standardized and debugged, I will try them again.

[SansGrip]

1. KVCD is not even KVCD-compatible. IF it IS a distinct format, why are there several, completely different methods which produce a "KVCD"?

There are also several different valid DVD resolutions. Is a DVD containing a 352x480 MPEG-2 stream not a "DVD"?

2. KVCD no less meaningful than VCD? You have got to be kidding. When I see a dozen or more DVD players with "KVCD" on the faceplate, I can accept this statement. Since that is not the case, this is just grandstanding.

I didn't say "KVCD" is no less meaningful than "VCD". I said "KVCD-compatible" is no less meaningful than "VCD-compatible". What's more, I was referring to the streams and discs, not the standalones.

Anybody remember SeVCD? I could tell you what one is, was 2 years ago, last year, and today. The author never claimed it was anything more than a specific type of XVCD.

What, you mean it hasn't improved in 2 years?

Regards,
SansGrip

[kwag]

and when your methods are standardized and debugged, I will try them again.

Don't hold your breath. We don't believe in standards
Just like racing cars. You have to make modifications. If not, you have a "Standard" car which only goes so fast.
Just like "Burger King". It's "standard" grill hamburgers, but will never taste like the ones you BBQ in your home.
Just like "standard" PC's. They'll never perform as if you build your own.
Just like VCDs. They play everywhere, but never look as good as KVCDs on your player when you buy a "selected" DVD players that plays them.

I could go on, but I think I make my point clear. And I have a definition for "standards", which I think is not apropiate to say here

-kwag

[Cornucopia]

kwag & SansGrip--

I think this thread is now over...

Don't hold your breath. We don't believe in standards

It's only possible to call something "compatible" with something else if that something else is clearly defined.

At the moment the recommended authoring method is to burn MPEG-1 streams as if they were VCDs, and MPEG-2 streams as if they were SVCDs or DVDs depending on the template used (correct me if I'm wrong, kwag).

Hopefully each new template is better than the last.

Which template gets used also depends on that person's definition of "good quality".

These quotes from kwag & SansGrip and the info about "templates" on kwag's own site reiterate what Vitualis and others have been trying to argue the whole time, i.e...

1. KVCD/KSVCD/KDVD, whatever, is not a "Standard"
2. They are only "optimized" templates--specifically MPEG encoding templates for the TMPGEnc encoder or something of similar capability.
3. They still rely on the "standard" PBC/VMG/File/Disc structure of their "Standard" counterparts--VCD/SVCD/DVD.

Thanks for the ammunition folks. All's I knowd is that it shore sounds like XVCD/XSVCD/XDVD to me.

Shows over. You can all go home now...

[kwag]

Shows over. You can all go home now...

Sweet dreams . The show was over for VCD's the day they defined the "standard". For KVCDs, it will be a very long time before it's over. You can go home now, I'll stay up much longer

-kwag

[Dodzzz]

Just like racing cars. You have to make modifications. If not, you have a "Standard" car which only goes so fast.

of course, but modificating it beyond the championship rules & regulations would be a useless effort.

you can modify and build a brand new Ferrari with great handling, speed and beat schumy's fastest laps with only 400 HP, but you can't enter any championships because that modified Ferrari has 7 wheels on it. Sure you can enter and win any "out-of-standard" free-style racing champs then, but winning a "standard" F-1 championship (that everyone knows what that is) is the real thing 8) !
and don't start dreaming that soon there will be a FormulaOne-7Wheeler Championships held exclusively just for your racing team!

We don't believe in standards

good for you!

IMHO, being out of standard is useless unless you're doing it just for fun or experimenting something.

[SansGrip]

These quotes from kwag & SansGrip and the info about "templates" on kwag's own site reiterate what Vitualis and others have been trying to argue the whole time

I think we all know what they say about taking quotes out of context. I'm sure if I went through the forum I could make you or Vitualis or anyone else say what I want too .

Thanks for the ammunition folks. All's I knowd is that it shore sounds like XVCD/XSVCD/XDVD to me.

As I said in one of my first posts, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I joined simply to clear up what I considered to be a misperception, nothing else. You encode your discs how you want, I'll encode mine how I want, and we'll both be happy -- regardless of the obvious advantages and disadvantages of both methods .

Regards,
SansGrip

[vitualis]

This thread should probably end.

Needless to say, I think I'm right but I dare say kwag and SansGrip feel the same way about their arguments too.

This thread is surprisingly non-flame-ish and let's keep it that way.

Regards.