No SVCD support. How to improve VCD quality ?

[Lula2001]

Hi ,

My Panasonic RV-31 is not SVCD compatible. So I have to stick with VCD. But using TMPGEnc and it's VCD template (bitrate 1150) does not yield good quality. Besides going up to 2400 bitrate (which my DVD player still supports) is there any other settings that could be tweaked in order to achieve better quality VCD ?

[toddkillings]

Set it to its highest setting.

Load the VCD NTSCFILM template...hit settings...the last pull down set to Highest (very slow)...also make sure you have the 4:3 NTSC 525 lines selected in two place (if that fits your TV and Region).

Sorry for the vaguness, I don't have access to TMPG from here. Hope that helps...Oh it takes longer this way as well.

tk

[Lula2001]

What exactly do you mean by "highest setting" ?

VCD NTSC Film template is for lower fps , not for 29.97 fps ????

As for "motion search" I am already using "Highest " setting

Also using 4:3 NTSC 525 lines.

Anyway, thank's for trying ....

[Yeshi]

yes, obviously your DVD player does NOT support MPEG-2 streams on CD-R/CD-RW. so all you have to do is author your XVCD at resolution 480x480 (SVCD RESOLUTION) as an MPEG-1 stream, and you will see a much better quality video.

[hankys]

Can you use a 480X480 XVCD resolution even if the source file is 352x240?

[Lula2001]

Hi Yeshi,

If I have the source file as 640 x 480 , would it be even better to author the XVCD at resolution 640 x 480 instead of 480 x 480 (SVCD resolution) as MPEG-1 stream ? What video bitrate should I use in both cases ? Will the DVD player work well with these resolutions ? As for audio, 128 would be good enough ?
Thank's

[Kdiddy]

if your peak bitrate is 2400 which is for that player, and no need to double post the same topic...mpeg-1 is geared more toward 352x240, and mpeg2 more toward 480x480 and bigger....THEORECTICALLY, at the same bitrate with mpeg-1, 352x240 looks better than 480x480..becuase 480x480 would require a higher bitrate to get the same quality becuase you have increased surfaced area..and since you cant increase you bitrate anymore...then no...you will just have to live with it...besides I sure this player will not support that resolution as well, I remember it being VERY picking about is VCD type material being as close to standard as possible.

[Anonymous65]

To get the best VCD quality, capture uncompressed AVI (or use very low compression with Picvideo MJPEG) at a frame size of 704x240, or capture at 352x480 using 2:1 vertical reduction during capture (in Vdub). Then let Tmpeg convert the file down to 352x240 size and encode it as VCD. Or if you can spend some money, get a PV231 card that will do direct to VCD captures with very good quality.

[Lula2001]

Hi Kdiddy,

First of all, no double post from me. The post on the other forum wasn't initiated by me.
Now from what you are saying the solution proposed by Yeshi does not work. 480 x 480 would need a higher bitrate.
So, what's your suggestion . Stick with bad quality ?
Very picky ? What do you mean ? It run an XVCD with 2400 video bitrate smoothly. That's way off the VCD specs !
I'm sure someone will help.

[Kdiddy]

No very picky when it comes to the resolution!!! (since it seems screaming is the thing to do)...480x480 is not a VCD resolution, and machine may not take it, my neighbor's from what I remember, its been awhile, but it didnt take 480x480...so it might be a moot point,....the point still being, 352x240 @ 1150 looks better than 480x480 @ 1150 at for mpeg1...in order to get 480x480 to the same quality you have to give it a higher bitrate....bitrate is the ONLY thing that is going to give a dramatic incease in quality period...filters add minimal quality improvements however usually add MAJOR time to encode process....the popular opinion is that there is very little difference with TMPG's "high" & "highest" setting quality wise..however the time difference is quite noticeable.

[spiderman2k1]

could use flask with the panasonic plugin or get a new dvd player that plays SVCD

[Yeshi]

<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 2001-10-17 09:27:57, Lula2001 wrote:
Hi Yeshi,

If I have the source file as 640 x 480 , would it be even better to author the XVCD at resolution 640 x 480 instead of 480 x 480 (SVCD resolution) as MPEG-1 stream ? What video bitrate should I use in both cases ? Will the DVD player work well with these resolutions ? As for audio, 128 would be good enough ?
Thank's
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

im quite sure that 640x480 will NOT play on your DVD player, here are the resolutions that played on my DVD player

352x240
352x288
480x480
480x576
720x480
720x576

and the person who wanted to know if they should use 480x480 if they have a 352x240 source, no dont. it will make it worse.

[Yeshi]

<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>
THEORECTICALLY, at the same bitrate with mpeg-1, 352x240 looks better than 480x480
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

That is not true in theory or practice, you made that assumption, which might i add is horribly wrong. you are misinforming people, i dont mean to come off sounding rude, but if i do, sorry.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Yeshi on 2001-10-18 01:10:46 ]</font>

[Yeshi]

<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>
the point still being, 352x240 @ 1150 looks better than 480x480 @ 1150 at for mpeg1
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Im struggling to find a polite way of saying you are hopeless wrong. if your source file is 640x480 and you encode at both MPEG-1 480x480 and MPEG-1 352x240 at 1150 the 480x480 will overall look much sharper than the 352x240. you said earlier that theoretically that is correct, i dont know what theory you base that on, seems like the theory that you store in your head, which wouldnt really make it theory.

[Yeshi]

<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>
bitrate is the ONLY thing that is going to give a dramatic incease in quality period
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Wrong again. What about resolution eh? you seem to have the view that 352x240 and 480x480 pictures look the same. you are wrong. VERY wrong. bitrate is NOT the only thing that accounts for quality. resolution is the other factor. As far as bitrate is concerned, you seem to think that increasing the bitrate will increase quality. wrong again. Bitrate helps to iron out the blocks in your video, so that motion will look smooth. the video QUALITY comes from resolution not bitrate.

[Yeshi]

Kdiddy try doing this. open up a source file of resolution say, 576x320 or something like that. now encode once at bitrate 1500 and again at bitrate 2500 and tell what what quality difference you see. none whatsoever. it is absolutely pointless to use a high bitrate (over 1500) for a video of resolution 352x240, because there is no need, all it does is add to your file size. while it is true that 480x480 needs a higher bitrate than 352x240, at the same bitrate the 480x480 would own the 352. how about this. im going to do this myself, and upload to my storage space, and then give you the link to it.

[vitualis]

Yeshi, have you actually tried it?

I'm sorry but 352x240 video at 1150 kbit/s will look MUCH better than 480x480 video at 1150 kbit/s with MPEG-1.

At a bitrate of CBR 1150 kbit/s, MPEG-1 is already struggling to encode 352x240 video with minimal "annoying" artificing. This is why NTSC-FILM or ramping up the bitrate for XVCDs makes 352x240 video look so much better.

480x480 video has almost 3 times the number of pixels or video data when compared to 352x240 video. Although the video may be sharper, sharpness is not the only aspect of perceived video quality. The MPEG artifacts present in 480x480 MPEG-1 video at a bitrate of 1150 kbit/s would make the quality essentially unwatchable.

Regards.

[vitualis]

<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 2001-10-18 01:17:51, Yeshi wrote:
while it is true that 480x480 needs a higher bitrate than 352x240, at the same bitrate the 480x480 would own the 352.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

This is not true and your interpretation is too simplistic.

The perceived quality of 480x480 would look better than the perceived quality of 352x240 only if the bitrate was high enough so that visible artificing is below a certain threshold for both clips.

If your interpretation was true, then at any bitrate, 480x480 would look "better" than 352x240.

As an extrapolation, surely 720x480 (DVD framesize) would look even "better" than 352x240 at the same bitrate?

This is obviously not the case.

Regards.

[Yeshi]

<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>
I'm sorry but 352x240 video at 1150 kbit/s will look MUCH better than 480x480 video at 1150 kbit/s with MPEG-1.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Your joking right? what kind of DVD player do you have? one that doesnt play SVCD's? that would explain it, ill have the proof for you in a minute

[Yeshi]

<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>

I'm sorry but 352x240 video at 1150 kbit/s will look MUCH better than 480x480 video at 1150 kbit/s with MPEG-1.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Re-quoting you there, you say that the 352x240 would look better tban the 480x480 mpeg 1 at same bitrate. so according to you will an mpeg-2 at 480x480 look better than a 352x240 mpeg 1 same bitrate? mpeg-1 and mpeg-2 = NO QUALITY DIFFERENCE AT SAME RESOLUTION & BITRATE. end of story

[Yeshi]

<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>
ill have the proof for you in a minute
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Quoting myself there, i said i'd prove it to you, but i cant be bothered so ill let you take it from here (vitualis). i have work to do.

[vitualis]

Yeshi, you speak as one who either doesn't know what he's talking about, or with no experience whatsoever.

Anybody who has made XVCDs at 480x480 with MPEG-1 will tell you that at a video bitrate of CBR 1150 kbit/s, the video quality is appalling -- worse than standard VCD.

Furthermore, a 480x480 MPEG-2 (SVCD) at CBR 1150kbit/s WILL NOT LOOK AS GOOD AS A STANDARD VCD EITHER -- also, anyone who has made SVCDs will tell you this also.

Again, if you bother to read my previous post and thought about it for half a minute, it should be OBVIOUS that 480x480 will not ALWAYS look as good as 352x240 depending on the bitrate, which is what you are suggesting. THINK ABOUT IT.

Again, 480x480 has about 3 times the video information compared to 352x240. MPEG compression is not some sort of magical encoding system. Without a commensurate increase in bitrate, MPEG artifacing appears and destroys perceptual video quality. In the specific example of CBR 1150 kbit/s, video at 352x240 definitely looks better than video at 480x480 whether you are using MPEG-1 or 2 (as artifacts become overwhelming at the higher framesize). Anyone with the slightest bit of experience in VCD and SVCD encoding knows to be true.

Furthermore, I resent having my posts put into a misleading light. I have NOT said that 352x240 will ALWAYS look better than 480x480 at same bitrate as you seem to insinuate. I have simply stated that 480x480 WILL NOT ALWAYS look better than 352x240 depending on the bitrate. This again should be obvious and is definitely true at 1150 kbit/s.

Regards.

[Kdiddy]

"i dont mean to come off sounding rude, but if i do, sorry."

First of all when people say that, they ARE trying to sound rude but are too much of pussy to own up to it...but more importantly try follwoing the WHOLE conversation before opening up ya mouth and proving just how much of an idiot you can be...

KEEP THE FIRST STATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL POSTER IN MIND
"My Panasonic RV-31 is not SVCD compatible. So I have to stick with VCD. But using TMPGEnc and it's VCD template (bitrate 1150) does not yield good quality"

Yeshi: "so according to you will an mpeg-2 at 480x480 look better"
The subject is about VCD, IE, mpeg1 ONLY, we were/are not discussing mpeg2.

"That is not true in theory or practice, you made that assumption, which might i add is horribly wrong."

not an assumption, cold hard facts, I suggest you take some time away from postings 4 stupid times in a row, get some experience on the matter...then you will learn as anyone who TRULY knows will tell you..that at 1.15 kbps at 352x240 provides an overall visual quality than 480x480 at that same bitrate...


"Wrong again. What about resolution eh? you seem to have the view that 352x240 and 480x480 pictures look the same. you are wrong. VERY wrong. bitrate is NOT the only thing that accounts for quality. resolution is the other factor."

Again, had you taken the time to read the whole conversation, you would know that we are ONLY talking about 352x240, since its almost certain that his player does not support 480x480...thus your pointless ramblings become 0 & void....the only thing dramatically he can do to improve overall visual quality AT THIS RESOLUTION is increase the bitrate from 1150....again read & COMPREHEND.

"As far as bitrate is concerned, you seem to think that increasing the bitrate will increase quality. wrong again. Bitrate helps to iron out the blocks in your video, so that motion will look smooth."

Now that has to be the most assine oxymoronic statement I have ever seen.....most people, ESPECIALLY newbies, equate lots of BLOCKS with bad quality...have you seen any posts around here lately, try doing a search on here for "block" & "macroblocks"....and I guarantee the 95% percent of time, it is followed by the words "bad quality"...thus smoothing this blocks away, with bitrate just as you said, reduces blocks therefore increase overall visual quality...

so yes go do some work, hopefully your knowledge at whatever it is someone unfortunately has to pay you to do, is better than your knowledge of this topic.

[Yeshi]

<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 2001-10-18 04:22:21, Kdiddy wrote:
"i dont mean to come off sounding rude, but if i do, sorry."

First of all when people say that, they ARE trying to sound rude but are too much of pussy to own up to it...but more importantly try follwoing the WHOLE conversation before opening up ya mouth and proving just how much of an idiot you can be...

KEEP THE FIRST STATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL POSTER IN MIND
"My Panasonic RV-31 is not SVCD compatible. So I have to stick with VCD. But using TMPGEnc and it's VCD template (bitrate 1150) does not yield good quality"

Yeshi: "so according to you will an mpeg-2 at 480x480 look better"
The subject is about VCD, IE, mpeg1 ONLY, we were/are not discussing mpeg2.

"That is not true in theory or practice, you made that assumption, which might i add is horribly wrong."

not an assumption, cold hard facts, I suggest you take some time away from postings 4 stupid times in a row, get some experience on the matter...then you will learn as anyone who TRULY knows will tell you..that at 1.15 kbps at 352x240 provides an overall visual quality than 480x480 at that same bitrate...


"Wrong again. What about resolution eh? you seem to have the view that 352x240 and 480x480 pictures look the same. you are wrong. VERY wrong. bitrate is NOT the only thing that accounts for quality. resolution is the other factor."

Again, had you taken the time to read the whole conversation, you would know that we are ONLY talking about 352x240, since its almost certain that his player does not support 480x480...thus your pointless ramblings become 0 & void....the only thing dramatically he can do to improve overall visual quality AT THIS RESOLUTION is increase the bitrate from 1150....again read & COMPREHEND.

"As far as bitrate is concerned, you seem to think that increasing the bitrate will increase quality. wrong again. Bitrate helps to iron out the blocks in your video, so that motion will look smooth."

Now that has to be the most assine oxymoronic statement I have ever seen.....most people, ESPECIALLY newbies, equate lots of BLOCKS with bad quality...have you seen any posts around here lately, try doing a search on here for "block" & "macroblocks"....and I guarantee the 95% percent of time, it is followed by the words "bad quality"...thus smoothing this blocks away, with bitrate just as you said, reduces blocks therefore increase overall visual quality...

so yes go do some work, hopefully your knowledge at whatever it is someone unfortunately has to pay you to do, is better than your knowledge of this topic.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Ok let me clear it up for you, i do mean to come off sounding rude, because you come off sounding like an arsehole, maybe you should put some more though into your posts. secondly i couldnt be much bothered reading your iditoic message, but i gathered the gist of it, i was laughing at your last part. let me requote it.

<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>
have you seen any posts around here lately, try doing a search on here for "block" & "macroblocks"
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

did you actually try doing that search? did you also find that i either authored or discussed in almost all of the threads on that nature? are you a n00b hell yes. i dont see how a player cant support 480x480 mpeg 1 but can support 352x240 mpeg-1. why dont you try it (who ever authored this thread) so we can have more proof of kdiddy's blatant idiocy. let me say it again kdiddy, maybe you should put more thought into your posts you come off sounding like an arsehole, and by the way, i dont know what it was that prompted me to write that i was sorry for coming off rude, i dont normally do that.

You just proved you idiocy by throwing away everything i said with some idiotic cop out statement like "that is not what this thread is about". pretty shitty attempt there eh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Yeshi on 2001-10-18 04:37:02 ]</font>

[Douglesh]

hmm, how do you define QUALITY? anyway the point here is that 352x240 is ugly. especially if you are using a source of high resolution like a DVD rip. in that case if you were to encode at mpeg-1 352x240 and mpeg1 480x480 at 1.15mbps then the 480x480 would look better. if you are using a small source like 352x240, then keeping it at 352x240 would be the best go.

[Dethroner]

Lula2001,
returning from debates about quality, resolution and bitrate to your question:

You can create XVCDs to play on your player. It will play them if source MPEG-1 has been encoded with TMPGEnc (it doesn't like files encoded with Panasonic encoder or Ligos).

You can encode video using resolutions 720x576, 704x576, 480x576 or 352x288 for PAL and 720x480, 704x480, 480x480 or 352x240 for NTSC with video bitrate up to 2500 kbit/s.

The process of encoding video for XVCD with TMPGEnc is described here: http://www.vcdhelp.com/tmpgencxvcd.htm

The simplest way to burn encoded files onto XVCD is using Nero, it has been described here: http://www.vcdhelp.com/neroxvcd.htm

[Kdiddy]

"You just proved you idiocy by throwing away everything i said with some idiotic cop out statement like "that is not what this thread is about". pretty shitty attempt there eh"

No I just disprove all your stupid statements with facts and this is the best you could do for a response??...such a pity..

"secondly i couldnt be much bothered reading "
yes you seem to have a hard time with this task dont you?

yeshi pointlessly wrote:" i dont see how a player cant support 480x480 mpeg 1 but can support 352x240 mpeg-1."

and I wrote: "and machine may not take it, my neighbor's from what I remember, its been awhile, but it didnt take 480x480...so it might be a moot point,....the point still being, 352x240 @ 1150 looks better than 480x480 @ 1150 at for mpeg1"
So what part of MAY or MIGHT confusing you here, never said 100% that it doesnt, are your reading comprehension skills that low??, I did not say for sure, but YES I have come across some crap a$$ machines that ONLY DISPLAY CORRECTLY mpeg1s at 352x240...anything else is either offcentered or doesnt play."

Douglesh: Again, I must disagree, when done correctly, 352x240 is FAR from ugly. The fact this site even exists proves credence to that...but again you may define you "ugly" different than the next person...however, regardless of source, 352x240 @ 1.15 (mpeg1) yeilds a better overall quality output than 480x480 @ 1.15 (mpeg1)....the "bigger is better" slogan doesnt work here...the bit per pixel ratio is higher in 352x240 than in 480x480...the higher the bit per pixel ratio...the better overall visual quality.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-10-18 05:22:40 ]</font>

[ebaldino]

Hi all.

This is an amanzing thread.

1. People, COOL DOWN !!! I realize a lot of people are tense around the world these days, but please remember that the purpose of these forums is TO HELP PEOPLE. If you really must have harsh arguments, find some private chat space and beat each other´s heads with dead cats until they meow, for all I care, but BEHAVE in the forums. Please. Michael, you should know better.

2. Trying to help the original post-er:

- You´ll have to try out all of these options. The results VARY depending on specific hardware and software. You can draw GENERAL conclusions from the bitrate/resolution discussion, but you´ll definetly need to try things out and see what works best for YOU.

- I would suggest you try CCE (three-pass) instead of TMPGENC. For ME it gives much better final quality.

- Quality, by the way, is a tough concept. There have been discussions in the forums about it. What is great, terrific, amazing quality for some might be junk to others. I got into a discussion one time and this fellow sent me clips of the "most amazing quality" he had obtained and it was far far below what I would accept. I kept on tweaking and eventually got something that pleases me. You have be stubborn and never give up. Whenever possible, ask for samples.

BTW, I just watched 4 commercial quality (store-bought) VCDs last week, and I tell you that the SVCDs I´m making from my cable-tv-recorded-VHS tapes are very nearly as good as three of them and actually better than the fourth (you could see some macro blocks on the x-rated VCD). So yes, it is possible.

The better the source, the better the result.


best regards
E.Baldino

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ebaldino on 2001-10-18 05:30:02 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ebaldino on 2001-10-18 05:34:41 ]</font>

[T 3 X]

Geeks! Geeks!

C'mon on now... lets put our highly sharpened HB pencils back in our top pockets and calm down.

You make it sound like this issue is up there with world famine.

T 3 X

[Douglesh]

<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 2001-10-18 05:19:19, Kdiddy wrote:
"You just proved you idiocy by throwing away everything i said with some idiotic cop out statement like "that is not what this thread is about". pretty shitty attempt there eh"

No I just disprove all your stupid statements with facts and this is the best you could do for a response??...such a pity..

"secondly i couldnt be much bothered reading "
yes you seem to have a hard time with this task dont you?

yeshi pointlessly wrote:" i dont see how a player cant support 480x480 mpeg 1 but can support 352x240 mpeg-1."

and I wrote: "and machine may not take it, my neighbor's from what I remember, its been awhile, but it didnt take 480x480...so it might be a moot point,....the point still being, 352x240 @ 1150 looks better than 480x480 @ 1150 at for mpeg1"
So what part of MAY or MIGHT confusing you here, never said 100% that it doesnt, are your reading comprehension skills that low??, I did not say for sure, but YES I have come across some crap a$$ machines that ONLY DISPLAY CORRECTLY mpeg1s at 352x240...anything else is either offcentered or doesnt play."

Douglesh: Again, I must disagree, when done correctly, 352x240 is FAR from ugly. The fact this site even exists proves credence to that...but again you may define you "ugly" different than the next person...however, regardless of source, 352x240 @ 1.15 (mpeg1) yeilds a better overall quality output than 480x480 @ 1.15 (mpeg1)....the "bigger is better" slogan doesnt work here...the bit per pixel ratio is higher in 352x240 than in 480x480...the higher the bit per pixel ratio...the better overall visual quality.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-10-18 05:22:40 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>


OK, say you want to fit a movie in VCD format on 2 CDR's. If you were to do the same thing with an SVCD the SVCD would like much better, ive done it many times, anywayz, SVCD is very good, they can look almost as good as the original DVD, which is why i stay away from 352x240, while it might not be ugly, 352x240 at its best, is absolutely no where near 480x480 at its best, dont try to argue with that one.