What exactly does 'downsizing' to 1/2 D1 do??

[jbenj01]

I read the glossary but don't understand what the difference will be on the TV screen. I was searching and just read a post where someone was converting the source to 352x480 1/2 D1 opposed to 352x480 SVCD.. didn't quite understand but understand that the end result from 1/2 D1 would look 'better' than SVCD.. not sure why?

When and why would you use 1/2 D1?? I'm in NTSC land and have a 34" 16:9 TV.

[lordsmurf]

TV sets are 4:3 ... 16:9 only for wide ones.

352x480 is storage res
480x80 is SVCD res, not 352x480
CVD uses 352x480 too.

Read the understand source guides at lordsmurf.com for more info on resolutions.

[duhmez]

Also note that 352x480 is only appropriate for 4:3 content,not 16:9 content.

[andkiich]

My biggest reasons for using half D1:

1) The source of what I'm encoding is TV or VHS. For me it's overkill to capture or encode at anything higher, it doesn't buy me anything. The resulting DVD looks just like the source.

2) When encoding a very long movie or episodic content. If I want to have 8 1/2 hour episodes on a DVD, the results will look much better using half D1 with the low bitrate required to fit that much data on on DVDR.

[jbenj01]

So it is useful to convert to 1/2 D1 in the event that you are trying to put a lot of mpeg2 video on ONE DVD-R, i.e., more than 6hrs or so, in order to maintain picture quality, yes?? If so...

I remember a post back last week where someone wanted back-up all 3 Godfather DVD's onto 1 DVD-R.. In this case, you're saying it would be prudent to re-encode at 352x480, rather than 720(or 704)x480 (assuming NTSC)??

If so, then my question is respects end quality.. Why is there better PQ at 352x480? Is it b/c there's....um.... less pixel-height to 'fill up' ?? Thx.

[sacajaweeda]

6+ hours you want to go with 352x240. 4 to 4.5 hours is pushing it @ half D1

MY $.02