What's the difference between 352x480 and 720x480?

[PolarBearWY]

The file size of my captures seems to be dependent on the bitrate I set, and not on resolution. Is this correct? 352x480 @ 6 Mb/s and 720x480 @ 6 Mb/s will create the same file size? (about 55 MB/min??)

So, what is the real difference then? What the max horizontal resolution for my TV? or any TV?

And... if I'm capturing from Dish Network, which is 480x480 (most likely), then why not capture in 480x480?

Thanks for any future insight.

[PolarBearWY]

Well, I just PMed Smurf and I can't wait for a reply. Using DVDPatcher, I can edit the header of an MPG file. Smurf will be interested in this because he will then be able to import his 352x480 captures into Adobe Encore DVD, fooling the program into thinking they are 720x480 MPGs.

But, we can go farther, right?

For all of us that capture from Dish Network, we have been capturing from a 480x480 source (most channels) and making them 352 or 720x480 files. Well, why not just capture that 480x480 source at 480x480? Seems like that should make sense. The ideal capture bitrates for a 352x480 and 720x480 bitrate is 4 Mb/s and 8 Mb/s, respectively, so the ideal bitrate for a 480x480 capture should be around 5.33 Mb/s, or 48 MB/min.

So what's wrong with this? Can it really be this simple?

I got Adobe Encore to import the MPG-2 as asset.
I got Adobe Encore to burn the DVD.
I got my DVD player to play the DVD.
And my TV didn't blow up.. lol (had to add that just for fun)

So does it really matter if this isn't DVD compliant? It played, and the video looked as good as the original Dish Network source video. And why shouldn't it? Capturing a 480 source at 352 loses some TVL, no? And capturing a 480 source at 720 interpolates 1 of every 3 TVLs, no?

Maybe I'm way off on this. I'm desperately trying to figure out this stuff, and can't figure out where there really isn't that much infomation out there on this sort of thing.

[mats.hogberg]

There's only one flaw in this otherwise brilliant line of reasoning: 480x480 is not a valid DVD resolution, and wont be playable by most players. 352*480 and 720*480 is valid.

It played,

Congrats. But what happens when your current player dies? Will the next one be as relaxed when it comes to enforcing standards?

/Mats

[duhmez]

I would not recommend anyone do this. It is not a compliant file. Some players will play it, some wont, some wil if you patch it with pan and scan info......
If you have svcd material already, then I'd say go for it but instead just use svcd2dvdmpg

[lordsmurf]

It takes the same amount of bitrate per pixel. So 704 takes twice as many as 352. And 720 takes just a bit over twice as much as 352.

Make a 720x480 2.0 MB/s capture and 352x480 2.0 MB/s capture. Be sure it is a high-action scene with lots of color. You'll understand.

More bitrate is needed to be allocated to more pixels. This is why VCD 352x240 can get away with 1.150 MB/s ... and 720x480 at 1.150 MB/s would die a sudden death.

As I told Polar ... as long as 480 works for you on your player, go ahead, just be aware other players might not be so nice (including your replacement in the future, assuming the disc outlasts the player). Taking it over to your buddies house may result in negative response too (his player may choke on non-spec DVDs). If anybody other than you or your current player may ever have need to watch the disc, it's a bad idea to make a special disc at 480x480. 352 and 480 are little different. Just use 352 to be safe. I've never seen a player that took 480 DVD and gave 0 problems.

[PolarBearWY]

Well, isn't capturing the 480x480 source at 352x480 losing horizontal resolution that I'd want to keep? Is that not how that works? I keep questioning myself about the 352 vs 720 capture mode when I'm only capturing from 480x480 source.

I guess what I'm asking is...

If EVERY single DVD player, console, etc. that is on the planet played the non-DVD compliant disc, then wouldn't it be most beneficial to capture 480x480 source at 480x480? That's my real question.

[lordsmurf]

Maybe, but only if the satellite source was at least 480x480 ... and it is most likely not, being 336x480 broadcast resolution.

Satellite upsizes some source. Not because it improves it, but because that's their optimal spec system-wide. Some are increased, some decreased. Something like ESPN is most definitely broadcast resolution.

Trevlac is looking into some TVL/resolution variances, and that may apply, but I've seen nothing to sway me to the contrary as of yet, in regards to his differential resolutions. In both cases though, both his supposed resolution (4/3rds 336TVL by his calculations, I believe, which is 436x480) and the ones I've verified (whereas the res is 336x480 input, no relation to output TVL) are both below the fake 480x480 output.

So no. Not in this scenario.

If the source was 480+, and the spec included 480, and you could capture 480 ... then sure ... but that is not the case here. The criteria fail.

352x480 is the best choice (as long as you use a good capture card and good software)... unless you like 704x480 and want more discs. That's up to you. Some people prefer that.

[PolarBearWY]

Thanks, Smurf. I'm just so hesitant to commit to a capturing method, since I will be deleting my source once I have authored the DVD. There are just so many variables to think about AFTER authoring. One person might be able to pick up artifacts within seconds while another may be able to watch a clip 100 times and never notice anything. One TV may be better than another. One person's eyes may be better than another's... lol. So I haven't wanted to use my eyes, my perception, and my TV as the deciding factors for my final method I choose.

I'm just going to have to commit!

[lordsmurf]

Just use ample bitrate, and you should be fine. Using 4.5 or even 5.0 on 352x480 will be more than safe. But 4.0 max should look fine too. Maybe even 3.0 or 3.5 at VBR.

[trevlac]

@PolarBear

Glad to hear you could get Adobe to accept out of spec files. Sounds like you even get full functionality.

As far as the risk ... I'd say it's not as great as people here point out. Be an interesting thing to test at a store. There is a whole forum here at ol vcdhelp devoted to putting 480x480 svcd on a dvd. I don't think they change the size when they do that.

From what I can tell, Dish sends the files at 540x480, not 480x480. I know this because I can pull them off of my Dish PVR hard drive. Some may say that the files are different than what is sent to me, but I don't think so. BTW 540 plays fine on my picky Sony player.

On the resolution thing. I'd have to basically agree with LordSmurf, 'cept for 1 small thing. I doubt that Dish only has 'broadcast' quality souce that they encode from. If they have higher, then the 480x480 you do has more info than the 352 he mentions.

This would be hard to test. Maybe you could cap espn with some text on the screen and also cap it from a CATV feed. The catv should be max 440x480. The dish is supposed to be 540x480. Another test might be to record to SVHS and then cap that at 480 and 352. That might depend on your VCR.

PS: The 540 is the frame size. I think Dish does filter this to a lower resolution as to remove noise and allow for a lower bitrate encode. Then they get tricky juice up the colors to make you think it is a better picture. Actually, I would prefer a non 'juiced' picture because it causes the reds to bleed if I send the signal thru low quality cable.

[duhmez]

Your PVR probably captures the analog source, so the res has nothng to do with its source.

[trevlac]

Your PVR probably captures the analog source, so the res has nothng to do with its source.

I have a PVR receiver combo. It does not contain an encoder chip. It 'records' different frame size files depending on what Dish sends. I'd conclude that when I pull the hard drive out of the thing, I have access to the digital info Dish sent to me.

So, the rez i can pull from the hard drive, is the rez dish sent. Can't say this is great. Not bad, but not great.

PS: Smurf thinks the digital source on the HD is not the digital source dish sent. This means to me that when I play recorded shows, they are different than watching live. I doubt this. But really, what's the point in arguing. I have what I have. Playback from the PVR HD looks the same as my non PVR receiver live.

[bottle-necked]

Smurf is giving some very good advice you know. I don't have an DVD authorizing program that will except 480x480 video files. Why even mess with a non standard format anyway? What would you do with it.. Put them on CD-R? Why?

I use different frame sizes depending upon my time requirements. For lots of DVD time you can start with VCD - 352x240 @ 1.15Mbps. The next step up is MPEG1 352x240 @ 1.850Mbps. Then is MPEG2 352x240 @ 2.0Mbps up to 4.0Mbps. Then 720x480 @ 4.0Mbps up to 8.0Mbps. Like Lord said, one woundn't capture with 720x480 @ 2.0Mbps, that would be stupid. In the same note, one wouldn't use 352x240 @ 8.0Mbps either.

I've got Direct TV. Sometimes their broadcast quality is about like VCD or worse, with audio sync problems and all. Sometimes it's near DVD quality. I think it depends on where they got their source material from and what channel its going to be showing on. Encore channels usually has high quality video. Lord says ESPN does too.

I'd listen to Smurf if I were you. He's telling you straight you know.

[PolarBearWY]

Why even mess with a non standard format anyway? What would you do with it.. Put them on CD-R? Why?

I use different frame sizes depending upon my time requirements. For lots of DVD time you can start with VCD - 352x240 @ 1.15Mbps. The next step up is MPEG1 352x240 @ 1.850Mbps. Then is MPEG2 352x240 @ 2.0Mbps up to 4.0Mbps. Then 720x480 @ 4.0Mbps up to 8.0Mbps. Like Lord said, one woundn't capture with 720x480 @ 2.0Mbps, that would be stupid. In the same note, one wouldn't use 352x240 @ 8.0Mbps either.

I've got Direct TV. Sometimes ... quality is about VCD ... sometimes ... DVD quality. I think it depends on where they got their source

Why mess? Why not? The XBox plays it. My g/f's PS2 plays it. My DVD player plays it.

We all know that much of Dish Network may be at 480x480, so why capture at 352 and lose some resolution and quality? We know that none of the normal Dish channels are higher than 480x480, so why bother with 720x480, right? It seems the only two options for NTSC Dish Network capture are 352x480 and 480x480. It would be silly to use 480x480 if your players can't play it. But if they can, it would seem silly to capture "possible" 480x480 source at 352x480. That's why I brought this up in the thread.

Capturing 480x480 at 5.5 CBR is about the same as capturing 720x480 at 8.0 CBR. What's the difference? Being able to record another 30 minutes PER DVD+R. That can be a big difference.

And let's forget about MPEG-1 or very low bitrate MPEG-2. Remember. we are talking about satellite TV quality on DVD. It won't be DVD quality, but we don't want to reduce the quality of the original airing either.

[energy80s]

I wouldn't recommend messing about with the horizontal frame size if you are planning to play your video on a set top machine. PC's will cope, but set tops won't. Stick with either 352, 704 or 720. They are the ONLY officially recognised DVD standards. Even SVCD's 480 won't play on a lot of machines. Just because something is broadcast at a certain resolution, doesn't mean that you have to encode it at the same resolution to get good picture quality.

[gcutler]

PolarBearWY,

From your question a week or two ago, I finally remembered why I captured my Dish output at 720x480 and not 352x480. My preferred authoring tool will always take 352x480 and re-encode it as 720x480, so that is probably why I default encoded at 720x480 (plus the belief that 480x480 converted to 720x480 should lose less than if converted to 352x480.)

[andie41]

My suggestion is to get the source, as far as possible, the same as the target, and make standard compliant DVD's. There are frequent compaints about the speed of TMPGenc. I don't find it slow at all, as I have my source so that all TMPGenc has to do is encode to Mpeg - no resizing or deinterlacing and not handling the audio at all.

Before I had a DVD writer, I followed sound advice on this site and captured my video to 352x480 and audio at 48khz so I don't have to change anything to now produce DVD's.

However, even though my source is Hi-8 video, I have discovered, when examined closely, that 352x480 is not as sharp as 704x480. I have read many comments and opinions to the effect that 352x480 is going to record pretty much all the resolution available in various "consumer" grade video, however, my observation is that 704 definitely shows more detail (on the computer monitor), but when this video is viewed on NTSC television, it becomes a non issue IMO, as NTSC masks many imperfections anyway.

[andie41]

I should add to my previous message, that as file size doesn't matter, I am now using 704x480 or 720x480. Even though I can't really discern a difference between 352x480 and 704x480 on my TV, there is still a bit more information recorded in the 704(720)x480 file and I may have a use for that someday.

[PolarBearWY]

I wouldn't recommend messing about with the horizontal frame size if you are planning to play your video on a set top machine. PC's will cope, but set tops won't. Stick with either 352, 704 or 720. They are the ONLY officially recognised DVD standards. Even SVCD's 480 won't play on a lot of machines.

I'm kinda wondering if everyone is missing my point.

MY (my, my, my, my!!!) DVD player DOES (does, does, does, does!!!) play 480x480 just fine. It's a Sony DVP-CX875P Progressive Scan 300+1 Changer. I think I mentioned that above. If I didn't, it's probably in my "details."

So, if EVERY SINGLE DVD player in the whole universe played 480x480, would you then capture your satellite source at 480x480? Everyone seems to think this is a "DVD compliance" thing, but I have already stated that isn't a concern, since my DVD player plays it just fine. It's the only DVD player I use to watch DVDs, and I'm sure we will have a new standard (like DL-DVD+R or blu ray) long before it craps out.

(I wonder if it plays the 480x480 because I use DVD patch to change the MPEG2 header so that it thinks it's compliant.) Doesn't really make sense that I'd have the only DVD player out there that would play this. Oh. Forgot. MY girlfriend's parents' crappy Walmart DVD player (~$80) will also play 480x480. I hate to put my Sony in the same class as a Walmart no-brand, but oh well.)