VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61
Thread
  1. I know this topic has been beaten to death, but I have one simple question:

    Is it impossible to produce a VCD from a VHS and expect to get the same quality as the original VHS source?

    I've noticed going from DVD to VCD you can achieve VHS quality, however, I think going from VHS to VCD you get crap. Other people on the forums say this is basically due to all the artifacts you'll see on VCD due to the low bitrate of 1150kb/s. I've tried higher bitrates all the way up to 2500, however I'm not sure if it'll work on all players that way.

    So I've finally come to point where I'm just about to draw the conclusion that VHS to VCD = crap. After days of experimenting and hours of reading through the forums with other people's experiences, I've tried everything but can't get what I want. I thought I achieved it by capturing at 640X480 with picvideo MJPEG set at 19, then converting in TMPGenc. It looked "ok" on the TV, artifacts were present (those macroblocks drive me crazy), but overall it wasn't too bad. But then when I made simultaneous side by side comparisons with the original VHS, the VCD looked like CRAP. Less sharp, less color, less clarity, etc.

    So I guess DVD to VCD = VHS, VHS to SVCD = VHS, but VHS to VCD = crap.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Search Comp PM
    Is it impossible to produce a VCD from a VHS and expect to get the same quality as the original VHS source?
    No, BUT.....

    It depends greatly on your source materal, hardware, software, and skill. I can go from live TV -> SVCD and only I can't really tell the difference 98% of the time. I could probably do the same with VHS -> SVCD or CVD with a TBC and some patience.

    From my understanding a TBC is essential in making good VHS -> digital conversion, but that is only ONE peice to the overall puzzle.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by mcard
    So I guess DVD to VCD = VHS, VHS to SVCD = VHS, but VHS to VCD = crap.
    Well, for a lot of people (and it sounds like you are one of us), VCD anything was always crap.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Texas USA
    Search Comp PM
    Unless it 1856 MPEG1 captured from perfect-quality digital tv (sat/cable), MPEG1 looks like crap to me. I have no use for VCD. The 352x240 resolution is too low.
    I'm not online anymore. Ask BALDRICK, LORDSMURF or SATSTORM for help. PM's are ignored.
    Quote Quote  
  5. So I take it that for the most part, YES indeed, it is impossible to produce a VCD from a VHS and expect to get the same quality as the original VHS source?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Search Comp PM
    You can make a reasonably good quality VCD (good being subjective here) using good sources. I've made some pretty good VCDs using high bitrate MPEG2 caps, DivX DVD rips and hi-res AVI sources. But I've noticed that VCD will probably exacerbate the problems in a crappy source, and this is especially true of old VCR tapes and VHS home videos. I took some family video from about 10-15 years back and ran it through the mill at the highest quality and most laborious processing settings I could and I still hated the results and ended up using SVCD, which I was happy with. I think VCD works pretty well with animation and maybe good TV caps, but as has been said, VCD is completely useless to some people.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    universe
    Search Comp PM
    my vcds made from vhs look better than the vhs. this is how I do it.
    porograms needed:
    Showshifter
    Virtual Dub 1.4c or similar
    Tmpgenc
    Win TV USB

    Filter needed DFoc for virtual dub
    Template needed Dvdhelp.us vcd template


    Capture video in highest quality WM9 using shoewshifter
    results in wmv video file.
    rename wmv file to .asf file

    open file in asf compatable virtual dub
    video full processing mode apply dynamic field order filter, i use skip 3 lines and skip 2 pixelss, but most recommend skip 1 and 1


    frameserve to tmpgenc

    load dvdhelp.us template and also apply the changes in the read me text, but do not use the noise reduction, the vdub will take care of this with the dfoc filter

    convert to mpeg 1

    takes a while but great results. you can add the noise reductiion as a test also but will take mucho longer.


    sit back and enjoy a great vcd with a good glass of water.
    Quote Quote  
  8. I`ve done plenty of VHS>VCD conversions that look just as good as the source tape.It`s just a matter of using the right filters and settings.The VCD & VHS resolutions are very close anyway.
    Nothing Unreal Exists
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Texas USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    The VCD & VHS resolutions are very close anyway.
    Only in theory, not in practice. VCD has no interlace. That's where the quality goes. It dies when the interlace is removed.
    I'm not online anymore. Ask BALDRICK, LORDSMURF or SATSTORM for help. PM's are ignored.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by txpharoah
    Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    The VCD & VHS resolutions are very close anyway.
    Only in theory, not in practice. VCD has no interlace. That's where the quality goes. It dies when the interlace is removed.
    Agreed. I think everyone has varying degrees of what is "acceptable." I still don't understand how anyone can get a VHS to VCD copy that is similar to the VHS in terms of quality. I'm not seeing it, and I've tried everything, including the suggestion by secret agent by using the DFOC filter in virtual dub and frame serving to TMPGenc. Still see noticeable artifacts in the mpeg1 produced, and the sharpness and detail of the image is definitely NOT as good as the original.

    What filters/settings would allow me to get a similar quality VCD copy
    of a VHS? I thought I was just wasting my time with this, but seems some people here have had success doing this? Or is their definition of "quality" and mine that different?

    xVCD and SVCD seem to be the way to go, but if it really is truly possible that you can indeed get similar quality to original going from VHS to VCD, then I'd prefer to stick with VCD for compatability reasons.

    It's important that I mention that when I first made my VHS to VCD copies, I thought they turned out great when viewing them alone. It was only when I actually compared the original VHS & VCD copy side by side, that I could clearly see the difference in image quality.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Evening all..

    @ mcard..
    So I take it that for the most part, YES indeed, it is impossible to produce a VCD from a VHS and expect to get the same quality as the original VHS source?
    IMO, no. A definate, no, if your source is VHS, and you are using 352x240
    as your final encode. Deffinately do not capture w/ 352x240. Using this
    resolution will be cutting your detail in half, hence our "no" response.

    In short, there are TWO filed you need, to reproduce as much detail as
    possible, when especially dealing w/ VHS source. And, to maintain the
    amount of deailt and sharpness (as much as poss) is to encode no lesser
    than 352x480 (not x240) the x240 is juts too blurry and fades the color
    somewhat, due to the stretching.

    The minimum for any VHS transference to VCD (aka these days as xSVCD)
    is 352x480. That is, you capture at least 352x480, NOT 352x240 and up it
    up 352x480 during the encoding. You must capture at least 352x480 !!

    Really, if you want as maximum for a VHS source quality, I would recommend
    the 352x480 capturing and encode to CVD(352x480) or xSVCD(480x480)
    and be happy w/ the results you obtain based on your level of skills

    Do give the above some thought. I've ben their, even fought on this issue
    of VHS ~ VCD qulaity campaine, to no avail at one time ago. I've learned a
    whole lot since that last campaine.

    Think about it, and of course, do your testings and observations on this
    whole issue for yourself. And, remember, it only matters to you, if you are
    the only one watching it (and your concience to haunt you) ..just some
    words of wisdom

    Have a good evening all.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  12. "Only in theory, not in practice. VCD has no interlace. That's where the quality goes. It dies when the interlace is removed."



    If the player allows it you can go XVCD with 352 480.I`ve done a few like this and they look great.But no matter what you do,going to mpeg1 or 2 is going to lose something in the conversion.It`s up to you what is acceptable.However I do get great VCD results probably because I spent an awful lot of experimenting with settings,and depending on the tape I`ll do VCD,XVCD or CVD.
    Nothing Unreal Exists
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Texas USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    If the player allows it you can go XVCD with 352 480.I`ve done a few like this and they look great.But no matter what you do,going to mpeg1 or 2 is going to lose something in the conversion..
    No, no and no. MPEG1 cannot interlace. That's a function of MPEG2. MPEG2 is not XVCD. If you encode properly and work with the source, video doesn't have to lose anything - at least in appearance. Technicality is another story, but human eyes are not that good, nor is our veiwing equipment.
    I'm not online anymore. Ask BALDRICK, LORDSMURF or SATSTORM for help. PM's are ignored.
    Quote Quote  
  14. To the original question, probably no...

    MPEG handles noisy video poorly, especially at low bitrates and if standard VHS is your source, it is probably pretty noisy video.

    You can get pretty good results from VCD spec MPEG-1 from a very good source (e.g., DVD rip) but I think it is pretty hard with VHS video... You will get better quality video if you capture both fields to the frame, do a proper deinterlace and run it through a raft of filter, but ultimately, every filter is a double-edged sword. You remove some of the noise, but you also remove some of the detail. Generally you go for where the noise removed is maximal but detail lost is at a minimum but it is always a trade-off.

    IMHO, (unless you are very very good), you will always get a noticeable difference between a source VHS tape and the end VCD.

    Regards.
    Michael Tam
    w: Morsels of Evidence
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by txpharoah
    Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    The VCD & VHS resolutions are very close anyway.
    Only in theory, not in practice. VCD has no interlace. That's where the quality goes. It dies when the interlace is removed.
    How does this progressive VCD play on an interlaced TV?
    Quote Quote  
  16. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    Count me also with vitualis for this!

    The main problem is the interlace factor. Mpeg 1 does not support interlace. For NTSC users, CVD is the way to go if the source is VHS. For PAL, an xSVCD alternative like Sefy's excellent SxVCD might be a solution (interlace mpeg 2 @ 352 X 288, ~1400kb/s, you can't do this with NTSC...)

    Basicly, the best VCD results I had from a VHS source took those steps:
    I Captured @ 352 X 576 (I'm PAL). Then on Virtualdub I used those filters: rmPAL, temporal smoother (6 value), Dynamic Noise Reduction MMX (12 Value), Video De-noise, De-interlace (PAL Field delay), resize to 352 x 288.
    I save the avi using huffyuv and then I again load it to virtualdub and frameserve it to TMPGenc. There, I load the VCD template, unlock it and set 2 PASS VBR with minimum, average and maximum value to 1150kb/s. So, I emulate a 2 PASS CBR mode. I encoded using High Quality mode.

    The result was good, but encoding the same avi to SxVCD (xSVCD) was far better....
    Plus, the VHS tape I used as a source, was a good one.
    Quote Quote  
  17. "No, no and no. MPEG1 cannot interlace. That's a function of MPEG2. MPEG2 is not XVCD. If you encode properly and work with the source, video doesn't have to lose anything - at least in appearance. Technicality is another story, but human eyes are not that good, nor is our veiwing equipment."


    I did not say that mpeg1 could interlace,nor did I say mpeg2 was XVCD and you do lose something in the coversion whether the human eyes see it or not.It seems you are just opposing me.I`m only trying to offer help from stuff I`ve learned from these very same forums.So please direct your attention to help the original poster and not just shoot down my suggestions.
    Nothing Unreal Exists
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    "No, no and no. MPEG1 cannot interlace. That's a function of MPEG2. MPEG2 is not XVCD. If you encode properly and work with the source, video doesn't have to lose anything - at least in appearance. Technicality is another story, but human eyes are not that good, nor is our veiwing equipment."


    I did not say that mpeg1 could interlace,nor did I say mpeg2 was XVCD and you do lose something in the coversion whether the human eyes see it or not.It seems you are just opposing me.I`m only trying to offer help from stuff I`ve learned from these very same forums.So please direct your attention to help the original poster and not just shoot down my suggestions.
    Was that for me? I'm not saying mpeg-1 can be interlaced. But I know this: My VCD's are all progressive in nature. My television is NOT progressive, it is interlaced. I am simply asking HOW my TV is able to break it apart to display it.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Not for you dude,just the guy that made the quote.
    Nothing Unreal Exists
    Quote Quote  
  20. "txpharoah to be exact"
    Nothing Unreal Exists
    Quote Quote  
  21. Thanks guys for all the responses, lots of positive feedback.

    Last night I tested some VHS to VCD discs on 3 different TV sets from small to big, old to new. Again, as I stated, the VCD when viewed alone doesn't look all too bad, and is "watchable." However, when u compare it to the original tape, u can clearly see the VHS is sharper, clearer, with more detail. The VCD looks "softer" in comparison.

    BUT, when I tested the final MPEG1 file produced from TMPGenc by hooking my PC up directly to the TV using the TV out, the result was great! Looked almost identical to original, crisp, sharp, nice colors, with the exception of the aspect ratio being a bit off. However, this exact same file when burned to VCD and played in my DVD player, looks "softer." Is there a reason why there's the difference, even though its the same file?
    Quote Quote  
  22. Here's how I see it:

    VHS = Crap
    VCD = Crap

    So, VHS to VCD will always = Crap....

    DVD to SVCD = not bad

    DVD to DVDR = Good
    Quote Quote  
  23. @All,

    VHS to VCD doesn't have to look bad at all. It's all how you do it
    http://www.kvcd.net/VHS.to.DMR-E80.to.VCD.mpg
    And that is an old, and I mean OLD VHS tape.
    Captured with a Panasonic DMR-E80H. Then processed as Standard VCD at 1,150Kbps with Inverse Telecine (The original VHS is FILM), using KVCD's Q. Matrix, GOP of 24, and optimized AviSynth script using Motion Adaptive filtering. The result is a plain VCD, which quality is about the same as the original VHS, and viewable on any standalone DVD/VCD player.
    Script used was this: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3483

    Bye!,
    -kwag
    KVCD.Net - Advanced Video Conversion
    http://www.kvcd.net
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Texas USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    If the player allows it you can go XVCD with 352 480.I`ve done a few like this and they look great.But no matter what you do,going to mpeg1 or 2 is going to lose something in the conversion..
    Originally Posted by Richard_Cranium
    "No, no and no. MPEG1 cannot interlace. That's a function of MPEG2. MPEG2 is not XVCD. If you encode properly and work with the source, video doesn't have to lose anything - at least in appearance. Technicality is another story, but human eyes are not that good, nor is our veiwing equipment."

    I did not say that mpeg1 could interlace,nor did I say mpeg2 was XVCD and you do lose something in the coversion whether the human eyes see it or not.It seems you are just opposing me.I`m only trying to offer help from stuff I`ve learned from these very same forums.So please direct your attention to help the original poster and not just shoot down my suggestions.
    Well, then, whatever your were trying to say made no sense. XVCD implies MPEG1. No matter then resolution of MPEG1, it isn't interlaced, and you therefore lose half of your image. Only MPEG2 can interlace. I was helping the original poster... by not letting him be confused with what you wrote.

    @kwag, that sample is nice, but I've still got my reservations about your methods. If given time, I may give it a try, just for grins.
    I'm not online anymore. Ask BALDRICK, LORDSMURF or SATSTORM for help. PM's are ignored.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Any comments on why there's a difference in quality between the TV out from my PC, and the VCD in the DVD player?

    Originally Posted by mcard
    Thanks guys for all the responses, lots of positive feedback.

    Last night I tested some VHS to VCD discs on 3 different TV sets from small to big, old to new. Again, as I stated, the VCD when viewed alone doesn't look all too bad, and is "watchable." However, when u compare it to the original tape, u can clearly see the VHS is sharper, clearer, with more detail. The VCD looks "softer" in comparison.

    BUT, when I tested the final MPEG1 file produced from TMPGenc by hooking my PC up directly to the TV using the TV out, the result was great! Looked almost identical to original, crisp, sharp, nice colors, with the exception of the aspect ratio being a bit off. However, this exact same file when burned to VCD and played in my DVD player, looks "softer." Is there a reason why there's the difference, even though its the same file?
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    hi mcard,

    Once again, I feel it necessary to go into detail.. .. ..

    Any comments on why there's a difference in quality between the TV out from my PC, and the VCD in the DVD player?
    Yes..
    A - stretched 352x240 VCD, MPEG-1 color space, and other misc.
    B - TV-OUT, diff. color space, not stretched.

    As for line A, the VCD has to be stretched to fit the TV aspects/demensions,
    and that leads to visible artfiacts, and slight color washout (or brighter look)

    As for line B, tv out's will appear in many different levels of quality.
    * That will depend on your Software (SW) player you use, and weather or not
    ...you do any stretching ie, fullscreen it (which means "stretching" it) or change
    ...any other aspect of the ie, letterbox etc. and any other misc things the SW
    ...peforms on the video.
    * Next, it depends on your graphics cards charactoristics, gamma setting,
    ...color settings etc, etc.
    * Also, your sources quality
    * And, your conversion factor (encoding) steps/processes

    All these idiotic things add up to differences in quality.

    @ All..
    We have to assume that the poster (or ayone for that matter) when they
    complain why they can't get VHS-to-VCD w/ same as VHS quality output
    is because:
    * They don't have the level of experience
    * Are not using the right tools and techniques (same as above)
    * Are not giving us enough info to go on
    * The user's source quality, and their equipment and Capturing device
    * The user's source type ie, Film vs. Interlace etc.
    * ...then, HOW then process such, to obtain "close to" quality etc.
    * Not to mention other tidbits, ie, frameloss, audio issues and the condition
    ...of their source tapes and so on and so forth

    The above is a lot to shuve up someone's face, but that's the reality of
    the HOW's and WHY's
    But, these tapes could very well be just plain crummy, but look good on
    TV when played via VCR.

    In the majority of cases, the above is usually on par. There's no doubt that
    you can get decent quality VCD (as in Kwag's sample demo )
    but to a not-so-skillful person, things are different.. till someone holds their
    hand and SHOWS them how. (oh, and proves them otherwise)

    The above has ben my experience w/ these issues. I've seen them many times
    over here (and other places) So, I felt it necessary to explain in detail the
    intricacies of the above.

    But, the bottom line is, no VHS - to - VCD conversion will ever look as good
    as the original (ie, sharp, clear, scanlines etc) at best. That's where the
    352x480 comes in. Once you capture both fields (x480) you will have a
    much sharper and clearer picutre to compare to.

    @ Kwag..
    oh, by the way, good sample demo

    Have a great day all.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by vhelp
    But, the bottom line is, no VHS - to - VCD conversion will ever look as good
    as the original (ie, sharp, clear, scanlines etc) at best. That's where the
    352x480 comes in. Once you capture both fields (x480) you will have a
    much sharper and clearer picutre to compare to.

    -vhelp

    The general consensus of most of the feedback here, seems to suggest that SVCD or CVD is the way to go for the VHS conversion, due to the interlace.

    That's what I was thinking too, just a little thrown off by some suggestions that it is possible to get the kind of quality I was after (ie/ truly comparable to original source) with only a VCD at 352X240, although you're loosing half the quality due to interlace. Seemed like some special combination of filters, and tweaks would make it possible, but I don't really see how due to the limitations of MPEG1. It seems most people on the forums agree with this, including historical posts that have discussed this subject in the past.

    The VHS to VCD conversion I have would probably be considered "good" quality by most people, but it's relative to your standards. To most people, video is video, so long as it isn't noticeably blurry, or the colors aren't strange, all looks same. To me, I'm the type that notices the smallest little details.

    I must admit, the source I have is somewhat crappy considering it's a copy of a Handycam video that's been transferred to VHS. The 640X480 AVI capture looks incredible, but the final product on VCD isn't as sharp, even with the all the tweaking, etc. Perhaps I'm being just too picky with this. I was just confused that maybe I was missing something, since I've come across certain comments that suggested VHS to VCD was possible at the same quality as the source, or even with better output than the VHS source (strange one).

    Perhaps it all comes down to their definition of "decent quality" vs. my definition of quality.

    Lots of good advice from everyone here
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    @ mcard..

    Yes, there's consenus here

    But, there are different levels of quality when you talk about VCDs.
    That is, Standard VCDs.
    * from DVD rips, are the best
    * from Satelite capturing (w/ good card and NO issues) as good as DVD
    ...in most cases, pending users' skills and technique level.
    * from VHS sources (and that varies, ie, you CAMs-to-VHS, and now to
    ...VCD's)
    * other sources - varies, as stated, source quality etc. etc.

    Then, there is xVCD's.
    * Standard VCD modified w/ non-standard settings, making it xVCD's.
    ...some example of "x" could be higher resolution, and/or bitrate etc.
    ...but, just remember, that Interlace is not supported in MPEG-1. So,
    ...if you want better (maximum) quality by going "x", you would best be
    ...with MPEG-2.., which has it's own set of advantages, pending on source,
    ...and it's type 16:9 or 4:3, letterbox and so on and so forth.

    If you're just stating out with VCDs, there's no substitue for the long and
    vigurous time last, trial and error expeirence. That's how you learn the
    secrets of HOWs and TOs and WHYs and so on. It's not easily learned in
    and overnight stay. Sure, someone can lend you a hand, and get you your
    first successful "good qulaity" VCD (assuming Standard) but what about
    when your source changes, or has glitches or your video device for the
    captuirng changes, and so on, how are you going to handle that ?? Do you
    think you'll have the same quality as in the last time someone lend you a
    helping hand ?? Probably not. But, it's good to know this, so some won't
    get mislead.

    IMO, goint MPEG-2 is the better route to take towards the future of your video
    endeavors, but you are free to go towards MPEG-1 for now.

    The 640X480 AVI capture looks incredible, but the final product isn't as sharp, even with the all the tweaking, etc.
    Yes, when you capture it, it does look incredable. Don't forget, that you
    are captuinr both fields, and Interlaced (aka Telecine too, in some projects)
    Your color space (ie, RGB) is this way. But, don't let it mislead you. VCD's
    use a different color space (YUV 4:2:0 I believe) not to mention, that TV's
    use a slitely modified color convergence too.. 16-235 I think, vs. 0-255 More junk to confuse you. Just more reasons why you are comming to the
    realization of why your VHS-to-VCD's do not look the same level of quality
    when you finish processing them.

    It's unfortunate, that you seem to be starting out w/ VHS as your source.
    What a heck of a way to start out learning from this low-grade source, hmmm ??

    Welp, good luck anyways. It still can be fun. But, at first, w/ LOTS of headackes.. but in time, rewards can be obtained

    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  29. [Well, then, whatever your were trying to say made no sense. XVCD implies MPEG1. No matter then resolution of MPEG1, it isn't interlaced, and you therefore lose half of your image. Only MPEG2 can interlace. I was helping the original poster... by not letting him be confused with what you wrote. ]



    I know that XVCD is mpeg1,I was suggesting it as an alternative to gain better quality if his player could play them.If you didn`t understand that`s your problem.Once again I never said mpeg1 can interlace and I said nothing to confuse anyone.Have a nice day.
    Nothing Unreal Exists
    Quote Quote  
  30. Originally Posted by vhelp
    It's unfortunate, that you seem to be starting out w/ VHS as your source.
    What a heck of a way to start out learning from this low-grade source, hmmm ??

    Welp, good luck anyways. It still can be fun. But, at first, w/ LOTS of headackes.. but in time, rewards can be obtained

    vhelp
    Thanks Vhelp for the comments. Actually I've been doing VCDs from awhile back ago (with good sources ie/DVD), so not entirely new to it all. But haven't done it for a long time and just started getting back into it again, since I've recently upgraded my equipment. The VHS conversion has been a fun learning experience, and there's been great input from everyone. Helps me to really appreciate the limits between MPEG1 and MPEG2.

    I've tried various xVCD formats as well as SVCD, and needless to say they're far better than a standard VCD, especially when using a VHS source.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!