DVD 352x576 vs SVCD at same cbr...

[chotoboto]

What's better, in size and quality.....


thnaks.

[Cecilio]

What's better, in size and quality.....


thnaks.

352*576 would be pal cvd, but i would say svcd would probably be better if you use CCE and 3 pass VBR. what is your bitrate anyways?

[adam]

It depends entirely on your bitrate. If the bitrate is around 2mbits or less than I'd say the DVD would be better, but even this is still highly subjective. Also 2mbits would be the starting point of your evaluation. You'd have to take into consideration the compressibility of your source, the aspect ratio etc...

Cecilio 352x576 would not be a CVD unless burnt on cdr media. If burnt on DVD media, like he seems to want to do, it is simply a compliant DVD that uses half-D1 resolution, which just happens to be the same resolution as CVD. They are still two completely independant formats.

[Ejoc]

Yea, at low bitrates CVD can look better then SVCD. Size will be the same if you use he same bitrate. ie 352x576 @2,520kbps will be the same size file as 480x576 @2,520kbps.

[macleod]

I dont think you would notice any difference between the two unless your were on a HDTV widescreen.

Although you didnt mention it in your question, an added benefit of CVD(352x480/576) over SVCD, is when it comes time to make a DVDR out of it, you just drag and drop it into an app like movie factory II and burn (assuming that your CVD audio is 48mhz).

[chotoboto]

thanks for the answers, well i think i am going to use 352x576.


thanks again.

[LisaB]

Well, for the definition sticklers here, I would say 352x576 MPEG-2 isn't DVD *or* CVD. It isn't anything until it's been muxed using one specification or the other...it's just plain MPEG-2.

To answer the question, if you use the same CBR, then the size will be exactly the same.

macleod makes the best point. If you're going to be watching this on a standard TV, then you won't gain any benefit by going for the SVCD resolution...the added resolution will just be wasted. Furthermore, the larger resolution will take more bitrate to make it look as good. Conclusion: for watching on standard TV, you'll get better quality by going with the 352x576.

That being said, you may wish you had gone for SVCD when you upgrade your TV in the future. However, it also depends on the bitrate you're going for...if the bitrate is too low, then 352x576 will look better regardless of what you view it on. *how low* is all subjective...

[Mrsash]

Can you burn dvd with 352x576 MPEG-2 with tmpg author or will it complain like it complains for svcd mpgs?

[LisaB]

tmpg author likes 352x576...it won't complain. 352x576 is a standard DVD compliant resolution. Plus, it will be faster to encode to 352x576 than 480x576.

[RabidDog]

I beg to differ .. IMHO svcd looks better than cvd at the same bitrate, not by a large degree, but noticeable. I havent done many cvd but when I have, I have noticed the difference. All the other agruments do stand tho, re xfr to Dvd. Cvd can be even less comptible than svcd.

Faster to encode ?? I doubt that very much ..

[macleod]

Cvd can be even less comptible than svcd.

trying figure out what you mean. From a CVD to one day being burned on a DVD (original CVD non-speced at 48mhz audio), how would this be less compatible that a SVCD? The only other thing I could think of is the VERY small (if any) percentage of dvd players that will play SVCD and not CVD?

[Cecilio]

i have over 100 CVDs. if you dont want to call them cvds call them half-d1 then. i used to think that cvd is way better than svcd because you save bitrate and everything. nope i will almost never use cvd anymore im just going to use SVCD when i can. plus it looks clearer, and sharper and very much exactly the same as the dvd you ripped or an avi you used as source.

[RabidDog]

The only other thing I could think of is the VERY small (if any) percentage of dvd players that will play SVCD and not CVD?

The last time I checked I thought there were more players that played svcd than CVD, obviously this may not be filled in correctly, BUT cvd is not a valid (dvd) resolution when used on cdr media. Just like most dvd player will NOT play minidvd, a valid resolution but not when used on cdr media.
Just checked 462 players play cvd
but 1467 players play svcd
The reason I say svcd is better is simply on a backup of blade runner when done in cvd the actors names and other text werent readable however when done as a svcd the text wasreadable. That was enough to convince me.

[adam]

The last time I checked I thought there were more players that played svcd than CVD, obviously this may not be filled in correctly, BUT cvd is not a valid (dvd) resolution when used on cdr media. Just like most dvd player will NOT play minidvd, a valid resolution but not when used on cdr media.
Just checked 462 players play cvd
but 1467 players play svcd

I'm not sure what you mean by this. CVD is a standardized format just like SVCD, and neither format has anything to do with DVD other than the fact that many DVD compliant players are also SVCD and/or CVD compliant. If you follow the historical beginnings of SVCD and CVD, then you will see that they are really one in the same. First there was CVD, then came SVCD. The Chinese government backed SVCD but CVD was already popular. To avoid forcing a good format out of business, the goverment made a compromise. Both CVD and SVCD were essentially merged into one format which is officially known as Super VCD, but which we now all just refer to today as SVCD. Really, all players that can play SVCD are supposed to also play CVD. Whether or not this is the case is another question because, after all, even many SVCD compatible DVD players have sketchy SVCD support.

Now the compatibility results on this site really don't tell you much in this regard. Just because someone reports that their dvd player supports SVCD and is silent in regards to CVD, that doesn't mean it automatically doesn't support CVD, it just means they didn't bother to test that. Since SVCD is overall much more popular and well known, it seems logical that its compatibility is tested much more often. Also many people seem to be under the false impression that CVD uses 48kHz. I think that a large portion of the compatibility tests for CVD are flawed in this regard.

Anyway, this is all besides the point. The poster's question had nothing to do with CVD at all. A DVD at 352x576 is simply a DVD. He is simply asking whether a half D1 DVD is better or worse quality than a SVCD, and of course the answer is that it depends. If you want to compare quality at this resolution to SVCD, there is simply no real answer. It all depends on the bitrate and your personal preference. At some bitrate point the half D1 DVD will undoubtedly be higher quality, and vice versa. In between these points is the grey area where your personal preferences between sharpness and artifacts will determine which one looks better to you.

[SatStorm]

Well said!
Also, keep all in mind that bicubic resize doesn't like 352 x 576/480 framesize. But it sure likes 480 x 576.

So, Cecilio, better search this difference. You need to learn much more about this hobby...

[LisaB]

RabidDog,

In your CVD vs. SVCD comparison, make sure you are not comparing apples and oranges.

CVD is almost always encoded using variable bitrate. SVCD is *usually* variable bitrate, but sometimes not. If you're trying to compare a CBR SVCD with a VBR CVD, then of course something like titles will be clearer on the CBR. Titles will demand much less bitrate than other parts of the film, and so the VBR will allocate less to it. A CBR encode, on the other hand, will usually waste a lot of bitrate on the endtitles...

[RabidDog]

I was talking about my own encode done using the same bitrate to fit the film on two 99min cdr. I cant vouch for anybodies elses perception of quality. Re svcd vs CVD I did mention that many people may not be filling the compatibilty form correctly but that is the only factual source we have to go on. Actually I think the chinese gov did not want to back svcd as a step up from Vcd (to avoid royalty payment) and set up China Video Disc std as an alternative. They wanted svcd-like quality to counter the growing popularity of DVD, but still using cheaper media and Burners.

[adam]

The Chinese Govt. did not "set up" either SVCD or CVD. Yes its its true that the Chinese Govt was interested in a new cd based format to rival DVD so that they could avoid paying royalties. They made known their desire to fund such a format.

C-Cube developed CVD, then Philips and several other companies released SVCD. The Govt. chose to back the SVCD format and the rest is history. Don't feel sorry for C-Cube though, they are now one of the world's largest manufacturers of mpeg2 decoders.

[Cecilio]

So, Cecilio, better search this difference. You need to learn much more about this hobby...

ummm no i dont need to learn alot more about this hobby, i know all i need to know to get by with perfect ass quality. the only thing i need to practice sort of is the way i explain it. ok so i know but i cant explain myself there happy. several days ago i ripped The Italian Job and i was going to put it on 3 cds because its 110 minutes. so i decided to use 3 pass vbr using CCE and DVD2SVCD and i was going to put about 37 minutes per cd using SVCD to get perfect quality right. well i left and it was encoding. the encoder decided to put the movie on 2 cds only and well each part was about 55 minutes and i would say this is pretty perfect quality. I saw my svcd on a 63" widescreen HDTV, and not a single macroblock through out the whole movie. just perfect clarity.

[Cecilio]

hey adam he never mentioned anything about burning the mpeg2 on a dvd or cd-r so neither of us can say its cvd or dvd. lets just say if its on cd-r its cvd. if its on dvd-r its dvd period.

[adam]

The title of this thread is...

DVD 352x576 vs SVCD at same cbr...

[SatStorm]

@Cecilio

DVD2SVCD is optimized for SVCD from DVD source. CVD is an extra feature. By default, the bicubic method used by this excellent program, isn't the best choice for CVD.

By the way, I agree: You know everything. I'm the one know nothing....
How stupid me....

[Cecilio]

@Cecilio

DVD2SVCD is optimized for SVCD from DVD source. CVD is an extra feature. By default, the bicubic method used by this excellent program, isn't the best choice for CVD.

By the way, I agree: You know everything. I'm the one know nothing....
How stupid me....

well then can you tell me what would result in an excellent quality cvd. using what programs and what procedures plz.

[SatStorm]

You know everything, you don't need help from stupid users like me, right?

[Cecilio]

ok i dont know everything and i know your not stupid. I know for a fact that you know much more than i do. you seem to know your stuff very well, so really i am asking how will i get better results making a cvd, if i cant reach it by using DVD2SVCD?

[chotoboto]

hey guys, love and peace, it is only video and audio.

[SatStorm]

You can't succeed great results with DVD2SVCD. Unfortunatelly, this amazing program is for SVCDs. If it was for CVDs, they would name it DVD2CVD....

One of the reasons is the wrong resizing method we all use.
For 480 x 480/576, bicubic resizing is okey.
For 352 x 480/576, bilinear is a much better choice.

Where is the problem, since TMPGenc resize only bilinear?

Read this post, I mention about resizing and why this happens here.
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=181377&highlight=

In case you use CCE (a legal copy of course, right?) you may need to set manual the resizing method to linear for best results if you choose CVD
(possible, but I don't remember how, I almost never back up DVDs to CDs...)

[Cecilio]

You can't succeed great results with DVD2SVCD. Unfortunatelly, this amazing program is for SVCDs. If it was for CVDs, they would name it DVD2CVD....

One of the reasons is the wrong resizing method we all use.
For 480 x 480/576, bicubic resizing is okey.
For 352 x 480/576, bilinear is a much better choice.

Where is the problem, since TMPGenc resize only bilinear?

Read this post, I mention about resizing and why this happens here.
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=181377&highlight=

In case you use CCE (a legal copy of course, right?) you may need to set manual the resizing method to linear for best results if you choose CVD
(possible, but I don't remember how, I almost never back up DVDs to CDs...)

Very nicely said. i would never have thought of the reason being to get better quality would be to change the bicubic and bilinear settings in DVD2SVCD. you were asking about me having a Legal copy of CCE hmm i guess you think im poor or some kind of computer program theif. well yea i did purchase it well not me my dad got it for me last christmas. yes it was pretty expensive, but whats a 1000 dollars. right now i cant check out the bilinear settings from DVD2CVD because i am currently encoding a movie using 4 pass vbr and this will be done some time later on tonight, so i cannot try it out today, but first thing tomorrow i will give it a shot and reply to the post.

[energy80s]

TMPG is better for CVD's. But I wouldn't try to put more than about 45 mins on a CDR disc as the bitrate is just too low, and MPEG 2 looks shite below 2mbps. In TMPG use the image crop function to cut 8 pixels off the left and right of the source DVD image to make it 704x576. To resize this to 352 all TMPG has to do is drop every other vertical "line". This results in better images than trying to downsize a 720 pixel image. Oh and if you are going VBR with TMPG use the CQ coding method as its better quality than two pass VBR (and much quicker too).

Yes, a 352 image will encode quicker than a 480 image (smaller frame size) and most European DVD players will play the disc fine. However many American players will not.

Oh and surprised that you have a DVD of "The Italian Job" as it's only been released in the cinemas here!

[SatStorm]

Now that's a very interesting tip energy80s!
Some easy practical solutions works best sometimes! Excellent!

Of course, this works best for DVD and those few DVB channels with 720 x 576 framesize. If you DVB source is less (544 or 528 or eve 480 hor lines) then resizing before TMPGenc really helps for quality!

I also agree than a full 4:3 screen look bad unter 2000kb/s for Mpeg 2. If your source is 16:9 you can use a little bit lower (1800kb/s) but not less! For my projects, I never set the bitrate lower than 2000kb/s myself.

About TMPGenc is better CCE for CVD: I don't believe this. I believe that most users of CCE which always have to use avisynth or fronters like DVD2SVCD to do their job done, don't even know what they doing. They simply use ready avisynth strips or solutions like DVD2SVCD without any modifications, 'cause they don't know how those are possible.
If you choose the correct resizing method with CCE, the results are about the same with TMPGenc @ ~2000kb/s or higher, but for lower bitrates, ~1700 / 1600 many are using, CCE looks "somehow" better.
Better on typical TV Screens, 'cause the mosquito noise is very visible and awfull looking (worst macroblocking!) to big screens or screens like plasma monitors, etc.
Anyway, by switching to DVDs the best advice is "never go lower 2000kb/s for mpeg 2 overall, if you wish quality on better than the average TV screens). The results from TMPGenc and CCE are about the same (speed is the problem here.... CCE is far faster)