divX vs. VCD

[valley_view_ca]

I pretty much mastered the technique of encoding vcd 2.0 from a dvd rip. I usually use 2pass vbr @ 1500kbps average. The settings appear to work great. I also use two 700MB cd-r’s to burn.

My vcd’s look great, just on the dark scenes, I’ve noticed on just about all vcd’s, the playback is a little too dark, but not unbearable. The regular lighted scenes look near dvd quality.

My friend recently gave me a divX movie that he ripped from a dvd. The movie is “15 minutes” I gotta tell you, the quality is AWESOME! Through out the whole movie, crisp clean playback. So I think I’m going to try to encode a few dvd rips to divX.

My question is, what is your opinions regarding vcd vs. divX movies?

[Jeomite]

VCD NTSC Standard is 352x240 1150kbit 29.97fps... while DivX is a flexible, and no 'real' standard, you can encode it @ at your preference of resolution, bitrate, and even fps if ya wanted. DivX is better quality because usually it's encoded @ atleast 1600kbit and hold higher compression than 'old' VideoCD standards.

[Vejita-sama]

If you're making VCDs from DVD rips you might want to up the resolution to 352x480 or 480x480 to get all the lines (this will help more than you think).

[Operationz]

if divx was standardized and hardware was available to play it on (not computers, but stand-alone players), I think it could possibly overtake VCD given time. I salute the team that took the very poorly designed M$ codec and turned it into something much better. however, any divx I come across eventually gets converted to VCD. why? simple: VCD is standardized. that's what is holding divx back, in my opinion.

[valley_view_ca]

I think I may also look into encoding svcd, I never tried it. The only down side to that is the svcd's can only encode 40 minutes per 80 minute cd, right?

I do prefer vcd because I can play it on a compatible dvd player beyond my computer, as opposed to the divx, it can only playback on the computer. But I was very impressed with that divx movie I watched, it was just like watching the dvd, and he told me he encoded it at approx- 1275kbps average. I use 1500kbps 2pass vbr on my vcd 2.0 encodes, they look good, but like I mentioned, I wish it was a crisp clean picture even on the dark scenes like that divx encode.

I appreciate all your opinions, thanks.

[xaanin]

Time of the SVCD doesn't matter. You can put 800MB SVCD on a 80 min CD. I know I put a 100 min SVCD on 2 80 min disks, so more than 40min per disk is possible. Guess it all depends on bitrate encoded at. It's encoded at 2.5 MBit/s (305KB/s), and looks almost like a DVD. Better than any DivX I've seen.

Valley, DivX can't as most have said can't be played on stand alone DVD players, so you're limited to the computer for playback. Also, DivX is IMHO worse than XVCD or SVCD, because it's throwing away alot of the movie (as much as possible as long as it doesn't loose alot of quality), and then you can't convert the DivX to a good quality VCD (DivX will usually give alot of Block noise if converted to VCD) if you decide you want to play it on your standalone DVD player.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xaanin on 2001-09-28 00:26:28 ]</font>

[Peter]

<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 2001-09-28 00:23:37, xaanin wrote:
Time of the SVCD doesn't matter. You can put 800MB SVCD on a 80 min CD. I know I put a 100 min SVCD on 2 80 min disks, so more than 40min per disk is possible. Guess it all depends on bitrate encoded at. It's encoded at 2.5 MBit/s (305KB/s), and looks almost like a DVD. Better than any DivX I've seen.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xaanin on 2001-09-28 00:26:28 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

If you didn't see a DiVX which is better as a SVCD with a average bitrate of 2500, you did see only poor quality encoded DiVX.

[adam]

I would definitely disagree with that statement Peter. I personally feel that svcd quality can surpass that of divx quite easily, and at 2.5mbits it doesnt get much better than that.

[DiViNeLeFT]

<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 2001-09-28 08:57:22, adam wrote:
I would definitely disagree with that statement Peter. I personally feel that svcd quality can surpass that of divx quite easily, and at 2.5mbits it doesnt get much better than that.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

how many cds that movie at 2.5mbits fit on though??

[Peter]

'At 2.5mbits it doesnt get much better than that?'

I think a lot of people will disagree with this. And if you encode at 2.5 mbit, you have to stick to single pass, because most good DVD players go up to 2600kbit.

Did you ever compare SVCD with DiVX(SmartBitrateControl), with the same source file and same bitrate (SVCD 2500 - DiVX 2250, so that appr. the same length fits on 1 CD)?

I have a pioneer standalone DVD and I prefer SVCD, so I can play it, but I still think DiVX is better.

[adam]

Well at 2.5mbits average a typical movie would take up either 3 or 4 disks depending on the length of the film. Drop the average to 2.0mbits and you will see amost no difference in quality and you will never need more than 3 cdrs, and often only 2. Drop the average a little more and you will fit it on 2 cdrs almost everytime and it will still beat divx in quality, at least in my opinion.

Again, in my opinion, a 3 cd svcd rip beats a 2 cd divx rip. A 2 cd svcd beats a 1 cd divx rip. And of course its not really possible to do a high quality 1 cd svcd rip if the movie is of average length.

So no matter how you look at it svcd will always require 1 more cd than divx, but never anymore and it will always beat it in quality. Of course like I said this is my personal opinion. There are fundamental differences between divx and svcd and any quality differences between them will always be purely subjective.

[adam]

At 2.5 mbits no it doesnt get much better than that because the limit is 2.6mbits and 100kbits doesnt make all that much difference and will rarely be noticable at those bitrates. And why would you have to be stuck with 1 pass for 2.5mbit average? You could do it in 2-4 passes and scenes that didnt require much bitrate would use significantly less than 2.5, decreasing filesize. Of course I don't recommend using 2.5 as an average, its too high and will often result in too large a filesize. By dropping that number you can get the exact same quality in no more than 3 cdrs and often on only 2 cdrs.

When I compare svcd to divx I ALWAYS take into account the latest encoding techniques including of course SBC. As I said in my previous post you simply cannot compare divx to svcd at the same filesize. That is not at all how svcd is intended to be used. I mean if you compared the dvd format to the svcd format using that test svcd would actually beat dvd, but that is an unfair comparison for the same reasons that they are unfair in comparing svcd to divx at the same filesize. Svcd should always be 1 cd larger than any divx in order to achieve higher quality. Anyone who chooses svcd over divx should realize this drawback. I don't deny that many people would claim that a 1 cd divx beats a 3 cd svcd, but from my personal experience, and believe me I have alot in this area, this is not the case.

[Peter]

<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 2001-09-28 11:47:36, adam wrote:
Again, in my opinion, a 3 cd svcd rip beats a 2 cd divx rip. A 2 cd svcd beats a 1 cd divx rip. And of course its not really possible to do a high quality 1 cd svcd rip if the movie is of average length.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Why compare a 3 cd svcd rip to a 2 cd svcd rip?

[adam]

I assume thats a typo and you meant a 3 cd svcd rip to a 2 cd divx rip? Why compare the two? For obvious reasons of course. If you compare the two formats using the same filesize than you are not comparing the formats at all you are comparing mpeg2 to mpeg4 which is a whole other debate. For typical movie lengths svcd is not meant to fit on 1 cd, it must always use at least 2. Divx on the other hand is frequently put on 1 cd.

So to compare the formats to each other you need to use it in the way it is meant to be used, meaning svcd must always be at least one cd larger than divx but not necessarily any larger than that. And in my opinion, as long as svcd is 1 cd larger than divx, it beats it in quality.

If you wanted to comare the dvd format to the divx "format" you wouldnt try to squeeze the entire dvd movie into a 740MB file and let that represent dvd quality, because that is not how dvd is intended to be used.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: adam on 2001-09-28 13:00:18 ]</font>

[xaanin]

Peter: I've watched plenty of DivX DVD rips, and none have been better than this SVCD rip I have now.
And also, Like Adam said, why compare the same file sizes?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xaanin on 2001-09-28 13:18:47 ]</font>

[DiViNeLeFT]

<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 2001-09-28 11:47:36, adam wrote:
Again, in my opinion, a 3 cd svcd rip beats a 2 cd divx rip. A 2 cd svcd beats a 1 cd divx rip. And of course its not really possible to do a high quality 1 cd svcd rip if the movie is of average length.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

first rule of benchmarking, testing, comparing, ect. you try to rule out as many variables as you can... that is why you dont compare a 3 cd anything to a 2 cd anything... you compare a 3 cd to a 3 cd or a 2 cd to a 2 cd. because if you dont follow this then anyone could just say that the only reason the svcd looks better is because it is on more cds.

and anyway... this debate has been beat to death... all posts about this have come down to everyone fighting until it gets closed or everyone agreeing that you cant pick a winner... you can only choose which format is best for you... someone with a 15inch monitor and no tvout on their comp but has a dvd player that supports svcds on their 35inch tv, try telling them that divx is better!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DiViNeLeFT on 2001-09-28 13:26:44 ]</font>

[adam]

<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 2001-09-28 13:20:32, DiViNeLeFT wrote:

first rule of benchmarking, testing, comparing, ect. you try to rule out as many variables as you can...
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly! That is my point. This is a quality debate not a size debate. Quality does not increase with size it increases with bitrate. To do a fair comparison you must ignore the size differences and look at their bitrate. For any given bitrate you encode your divx in a svcd using that same bitrate might be twice as big, but that has nothing to do with quality. Just because the svcd takes up more space doesnt mean that gives it an advantage in the quality department, it just means it gives it a disadvantage in the compression department. In a comparison of quality, size is a byproduct, NOT a factor.

But when comparing svcds and divx's you have nothing BUT variables anyway because they are inherantly and fundamentally different. That is why comparing divx to svcd results in nothing more than a subjective opinion. There is no such thing as a fair comparison between divx and svcd so all you can do is make up your mind for yourself.

[DiViNeLeFT]

<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 2001-09-28 14:29:36, adam wrote:
But when comparing svcds and divx's you have nothing BUT variables anyway because they are inherantly and fundamentally different. That is why comparing divx to svcd results in nothing more than a subjective opinion. There is no such thing as a fair comparison between divx and svcd so all you can do is make up your mind for yourself.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

i agree 100%, for me i prefer to create standard vcds for the reasons that they are easyer to make than divx in my opinion... they look great in my opinion... and they playback on stand alone dvd players.

now dont get me wrong... just because i prefer vcd doesnt mean i dont like divx... i prefer divx when it comes to downloading movies... do i want to download a svcd that will be 1.4-2.1GB or a 700-1400MB divx release. the choice is obvious. if i like the divx i watched i will rent or borrow the dvd to rip to vcd or if i really like the movie will buy the dvd.

[valley_view_ca]

If I encode a svcd on 3 cd's, will it take 1/3 longer then it would normally take me to encode a vcd 2.0 on 2 cd's?

I use TMPGEnc to encode. Do any of you have an optimal svcd template that I can load when I encode my svcd?

My TMPGEnc folder has various templates, I'm just wondering if any of you created your own svcd template and can share it with me? If so, please mail it to me at: valley_view_ca@yahoo.com

[Surferr]

I'm also interested in obtaining any templates for TMPG that produce high quality SVCDs on 2 CDs. If you have any that you are willing to share, please email me at surferr_1@yahoo.com. Thanks in advance.

surferr

[valley_view_ca]

Surferr,

I have an awesome template to encode vcd 2.0, it's 2pass vbr set at 1500kbps average, but can be adjusted. It creates excellent quality dvd rips, but as I said before, on the dark scenes, it gets a little too dark. That is why I want to look into creating svcd to see the difference in quality.

So if anyone has a personal preset "svcd template", please share it with us/me....
valley_view_ca@yahoo.com