View Profile
View Forum Posts
Visit Homepage
It is a better alternative to calm down a topic, than lock it...
Closed Thread
Results 91 to 120 of 150
-
The Old One
- Aug 2000
- Hellas (Greece), E.U.
-
Ok SatStorm,Originally Posted by SatStorm
I know you're not the only Mod around here but you have already been around/active in other threads where the subject was pretty close to "KVCD looks just like crap - a free e-book by Lordsmurf".
You will only be an ******* if you want and not just because someone says you are.
Now notice that you strike Pacheco while he was IMO writting on topic, while maybe using some hard words,and that you haven't done the same (in fact anything) about Lordsmurf even if he suggests that Portugal isn't a free country thus that explaining my point of views!
Do you really want to be an *******? Just go ahead, make your day.
On the other hand, want to be a very nice guy to all of us that aren't here just to speak but also to interact and maybe try to help the forums?
Then start treating everybody the same way because it's not only what LS has been writting in this thread about Karl and KVCD.
He has done the exact same thing on every KVCD related thread you search.
Now let you all know that I'm very proud of being Portuguese and may I inform you LS that this has been a free country for 30 years, now.
That's exactly my age.
You can come here and see for yourself.
You'll also see the kind of hospitality we can give to anybody from other countries/cultures.
For god sake ask anyone that has been here for the Euro2004 and they'll tell you!
So don't you come here saying "poor old rds_correia, he doesn't know that in the real world you can do/say/write whatever comes to your mind".
You are sick: you have KVCDaches just by hearing the name of it!!
You could easily had pointed anyone asking for more info on KVCD to it's own site but that would hurt your feelings, wouldn't it???
As you can all see I'm also pretty tired of only reading nonsense about the subject.
So if you want to strike me go ahead.
After these latest events I don't think I'll be coming back: it's not Pacheco that sounds like a broken record saying that KVCD looks good and that KDVD is 100% DVD compliant. You all seem like a broken record when you sharish the ones that stay here everyday kissing old timers ass and just use the "stricktly business/legal" way with guys that are also members for quite some time but that don't have much post counting.
May you all have a nice day.
-
You should be. They won Group A.Originally Posted by rds_correia
-
This thread needs a double-post badly...
That is just plain fucked up. I'm surprised nobody has asked how to do it yet.Originally Posted by Supreme2k
-
rds_correia:
Come on! Thats a bit too far stretched....Lordsmurf even if he suggests that Portugal isn't a free country thus that explaining my point of views...
Lordsmurf:
Look. There is nothing wrong with his statement. it is not abusive to Portugal at all. You try to make more out of it than he had said. Beside - he is entitled to his opinion as much as you are. Or anyone else.I can answer a question any way I see fit. This isn't a communist-repressed place.
I don't know much about the social/culture of Portugal, but where I come from, I can call something "trash" and no further explanation is needed. (However, I often explain my position.) I think we may have simply hit a cultural barrier.
I didnt knew f***g political correctness had spread over Europe already as well. sad.
Stux (3ivx Dev Team) wrote once:
I'd trust Stux' opinion than any of Karl the KVCD guy.... KVCD matrices do damage image quality, but they can result in compression gains...
From what I check out in the past day (being curious about this kwag nonsense) I came to conclusion that probably Karl had once upon a time read something about trellis quantization, and he had an idea about modifying it to the degree where at expense of quality he gets higher compression. Great idea at the time (when 99.99% of us had only CD-writers and not many had standalone players - thus we were using only tv-out of our computers to playback those VCDs, and those who had first gen. standalone players - SVCD/CVD formats werent supported by them).
But it is middle of 2004 for chris'sake. Dual layer DVD-R is here! Cant you realize its really time to move on?! There is no 'market' for kwag's stuff anymore, let it go to home video's heaven alltogether with VCD, VHS, LD etc. Thats all what I have to say.
Yet again - if it works for you and youre happy - use it! Is anyone forcing you to stop using it?
My grandpa still prefers his VHS even though he got panny recorder last xmas, and theres nothing wrong with it. He prefers the remote of his VCR and thats the reason he like it better (or so he says so). Pacheco has standalone player that is not able to play CVD/SVCD - another good enough reason to stick with kwaq templates. You may have another reason to stick with kwaq. Yet all of you are just like last dinosaurs, nothing more.
_________
Edit - here is link to Stux's opinion I just found: http://forums.3ivx.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=1368
-
Good points.
I am one of those who still enjoys making videos on CD. I'd say 1 in 5 discs that comes out of my recorder is a DVD.
-
indolikaa - I too actually prefer (formyself) burning tv shows on CDs than DVDs, thats why I cap most of the tv shows in CVD or SVCD format on my 'PVR computer'. Unless I know the show will not come out on DVD anytime soon - then ofcoz I'd capture it in DVD-specs and burn to DVD-R
Not that I burn them much, I usually delete the shows off hdd after I see them, but the point is I still use "CD-R - based formats"
And I agree - nothing beats $0.10-0.20 per disc vs $1.00-2.00 per disc
-
That's a very old comment and I think it was related to the matrix in divx encodings.Originally Posted by DereX888
The kvcd matrix tables were designed for mpeg1 and mpeg2, and not for divx.
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
And remember that those people at 3ivx don't like competition!
And kvcd clearly is taking there shares away.
And about smurphy's comment -
If you carefully analyze it, it has a strong meaning.I don't know much about the social/culture of Portugal, but where I come from, I can call something "trash" and no further explanation is needed.
It's clearly saying that Portuguese people are stupid, because they need extended explanations.
That's the way I read it, and it's very clear to me, and makes the smurf a lower class person every day
What a great (trash) repository this site is!
This is worse than a 13 year olders chat room!
@satstorm
After reading your posts, i really think you are a crazy (ass->hole) guy
I thought this site was about video, but it seems like it's plagued with a bunch of kids
-
@pacheco
I was quoting Stux from memory what I read last night.
I added link to my previous post, you can read it. Discussion was about MPEG quantizations.
Yes, I know them at 3ivx are jealous of divx and xvid teams, and perhaps of kwag as well. Thats good :P there would be no progress in the world if we lack competition (thats why communism - although great in theory - has failed in reality everywhere )
I don't know Stux personally, but from what I read I think he is knowledgeable enough to take/respect his opinions. Plus I intentionally quoted him because he is from a "third party" - not involved in neither 'camp' here
About lordsmurf' comment - perhaps I too (like SatStorm) have a bit different view on things than most of other people. I truly dont find it abusive nor disrespecting to Portuguese people at all, and IMHO what you describe and find in his comment is just "reading between lines", a common political correctness practice with roots to masters of propaganda like Goebbels etc (he could prove white is actually black in one of his speeches lol - and no one could beat his arguments). I understand words the way they are written, I don't seek their hidden meanings.
Again - Im not lordsmurf, I cant tell you what he meant, only he can explain. I can only tell you how I understand it, and as everything else what I wrote here - it will be my only own opinion.
-
More specifically, the matrices were designed for low bitrate mpeg1/2. As such, they use very aggressive settings that do indeed filter the source quite heavily. That is how GOP matrices work. Its basically like a high-pass filter. You are sacrificing quality for compression, there is no denying that. That is the whole point of the templates. The modified GOP matrices are just designed to make the image more compressible, but if you have the space ie: DVD media or multiple disks, then there is no reason to resort to these methods.Originally Posted by pacheco
Without attacking these templates... they are designed for low bitrate encodes. If you don't have to use low bitrates, and you don't want to, and you have come to expect the level of quality that you get out of full bitrate SVCDs and DVDs, then yes kvcds and the like are lower quality by comparison.
-
I didnt see bottom of your post, something wrong with my box today
pacheco:
Thats a very harsh statement.What a great (trash) repository this site is!
This is worse than a 13 year olders chat room!
Different opinions happen everywhere. There is great chinese saying "where there is 5 people - there is 10 different opinions" or something like that
You cant bash entire site because some people happen to disagree with your opinion.
anyway all of it is just a one big
already, and Im outta this thread.
-
Errrr... adam, a GOP has nothing to do with a matrix!Originally Posted by adamErrrrr, excuse me, but a high pass filter enables high frequencies to pass, and attenuates lower frequencies.Its basically like a high-pass filter.
I think you got it backwards I am aware of that, but the sacrifice is not visible to the eye, and if you look and compare in the tv set, there's no difference. But I'ts just like a high quality mp3 file, that you can't hear the difference. In this case, you can't see the difference, but you have to know how to properly encode itYou are sacrificing quality for compression, there is no denying that. Get on with the topic adamThat is the whole point of the templates. The modified GOP matrices, here you go again with a gop matrix Why not!are just designed to make the image more compressible, but if you have the space ie: DVD media or multiple disks, then there is no reason to resort to these methods.
If you can't tell the difference from a regular DVD encode, and you can fit three times more on a DVD-R, why would I use a regular matrix that only lets me encode one movie, when I can encode three movies and they will look the same, on the tv that is!
It just doesnt make sense![/quote] Sorry!, but I think you are not really aware of the current kvcd techniques!
Without attacking these templates... they are designed for low bitrate encodes. If you don't have to use low bitrates, and you don't want to, and you have come to expect the level of quality that you get out of full bitrate SVCDs and DVDs, then yes kvcds and the like are lower quality by comparison.
I have been reading hours and hours on their methods, and your words and the words of most of the people here just don't make sense to the reality of the practical results I get with their techniques.
Why do you refer to 'templates" alll the time?
this is nothing about a template, it's about matrixes and encoding techniques!
I get a feeling that you and all the people here keep mentioning that kvcd template bla bla bla!
I dont even use templates, because i'm deeply into mencoder, which sports kvcd tables built-in!
I think you are refering to kvcd templates, the way kwag started this thing, and i don't even use their templates anymore.
I use their specifications and fit them to my needs. This is what I folllow -->> http://www.kvcd.org/portal/articles.php?lng=en&pg=20 [quote]
-
Its the Quantize Matrix. It was a typo...both times. I was in a hurry, it doesn't affect anything that I said. You obviously can tell what I was talking about.Originally Posted by pacheco
Originally Posted by adamThis is the exact viewpoint that everyone in this thread is rejecting. Obviously people do see a difference, otherwise there wouldn't be much reason to continually tweak the templates and encoding methods.Originally Posted by pacheco
If you don't see a difference then no it wouldn't make sense to use a higher bitrate rather than squeeze multiple movies on each disk. But since other people obviously can tell a difference, they choose to use their own encoding methods. Just because someone doesn't like Kwag's templates that doesn't mean they haven't bothered to try them. Believe it or not, people are capable of forming their own opinions even if they are the opposite of yours. I have tried and re-tried Kwag's templates (yes they are templates...do you manually load the customQuantize Matrix everytime you do an encode?). I also already use most of the avisynth filtering techniques selectively in my encodes, I just don't choose to heavily filter everything I encode. Its not necessary if you use enough bitrate. I have given them a more than a fair chance and I personally think the techniques are proven to work at what they do...enhance the quality of low-bitrate encodes. I just have no need for that and find that my own methods provide better quality results for me, regardless of how things look on your tv. I think you are doing Kwag and his methods a disservice here. Surely he wouldn't make these same contentions. I've never before seen someone make such matter of fact conclusions regarding something as inherantly subjective as video quality. X does not equal Y simply because you can't tell the difference.If you can't tell the difference from a regular DVD encode, and you can fit three times more on a DVD-R, why would I use a regular matrix that only lets me encode one movie, when I can encode three movies and they will look the same, on the tv that is!
It just doesnt make sense!
Anyway, like I said way back, no one is going to change anyone else's mind. I'm glad you've found an encoding technique you trust. Just respect that other people are capable of doing the same.
-
I think some people can't admit that there are formats that have a better quality/compression ratio over Kwags formats.
-
Easy on the beer buddyOriginally Posted by adam Yes I can, and I can tell the difference from a newbie and a pro, when someone refers to a GOP the same way as a matrixit doesn't affect anything that I said. You obviously can tell what I was talking about.
I can be really drunk, but no matter how drunk I am, I can tell black from white template. template. template!.
Originally Posted by adamThis is the exact viewpoint that everyone in this thread is rejecting. Obviously people do see a difference, otherwise there wouldn't be much reason to continually tweak the templates and encoding methods.Originally Posted by pacheco
Why do you keep insisting on templates?
If you refer to a matrix table as a template, then that's fine with me.
If you refer to a TMPGEnc template, then it's completely wrong, because TMPGEnc templates seem to be a thing of the past when we talk about kvcd.
However, I give you the benefit of the doubdt, because I haev even tried mainconcept encoder with kvcd tables, and it seems to work just fine too.
If you mean templates just like a 'blueprint', then I can understand your point.
If you mean templates like TMPGEnc templates, then you are dead wrong, because I can use kvcd tables on any encoder, regardless of a direct connection with TMPGEnc templates. I hope you agree with this statement.Who's talking about heavy filtering?If you don't see a difference then no it wouldn't make sense to use a higher bitrate rather than squeeze multiple movies on each disk. But since other people obviously can tell a difference, they choose to use their own encoding methods. Just because someone doesn't like Kwag's templates that doesn't mean they haven't bothered to try them. Believe it or not, people are capable of forming their own opinions even if they are the opposite of yours. I have tried and re-tried Kwag's templates (yes they are templates...do you manually load the customQuantize Matrix everytime you do an encode?). I also already use most of the avisynth filtering techniques selectively in my encodes, I just don't choose to heavily filter everything I encode.If you can't tell the difference from a regular DVD encode, and you can fit three times more on a DVD-R, why would I use a regular matrix that only lets me encode one movie, when I can encode three movies and they will look the same, on the tv that is!
It just doesnt make sense!
I don't use any filtering at all, and I get three movies on a DVD with mencoder, without any filtering.
What are you talking about?
Is this a vintage kwags memory that you preserve?
Just with the kvcd notch tables, I can put three movies on one DVD, and to my eyes, it looks just like the original!
As I said before, I think you and many here are living in the days when the kvcd was a tmpgenc template, and you cant see past that point!
Nope, sorry, I disagree.Its not necessary if you use enough bitrate. I have given them a more than a fair chance and I personally think the techniques are proven to work at what they do...enhance the quality of low-bitrate encodes.
DVDs are high birtate, and their techniques are proven to give excelent quality, even encoding over 5 hours on a DVD. And I can drink to that Good for youI just have no need for that and find that my own methods provide better quality results for me, regardless of how things look on your tv.
I do respect what others do find. What I don't respect is what other creeps say without even trying, just by followint the tide.
Anyway, like I said way back, no one is going to change anyone else's mind. I'm glad you've found an encoding technique you trust. Just respect that other people are capable of doing the same.
Yes, I am happy with the methods, and happy with fitting 3 movies on one dvd.
I know that this is possible with other methods, but I'm not sure if the results are like theones I experience.
And by the way, and again I don't want to sound like a scratched record, it's funny how panasonic delivered a special quantize matrix in their dmr-x line of dvd recorders. It seems they saw the light in a custom matrx
-
I wonder what kind of royalty/patent issues the term 'KVCD' and 'KDVD' would be infringing upon?
Hmmm...
-
Let me know when you find one!Originally Posted by LanEvo7
Because so far, all the new encoding programs that are coming out are incorporating kvcd matrix tables
QuEnc
DVD Rebuilder
DIKO
Mencode-ME
Pack-Shot
And even DVDShrink I think I heard was doing some tests with kvcd tables
Go to doom9.net and check it out!
-
I dont see what's funny about this, or how this provides any support for kvcd/kdvd etc...Originally Posted by pachecoit's funny how panasonic delivered a special quantize matrix in their dmr-x line of dvd recorders. It seems they saw the light in a custom matrx
Just about every studio uses their own custom matrix. Some of them are freely distributed on the internet. Yes, alot of hardware recorders/encoders use custom matrices as well. The various matrices are geared for specific types of video, and mainly for a specific compression ratio. If someone wants to use higher bitrates, for example, then the kvcd matrix would be a poor choice.
There's nothing suprising or revolutionary about using various quantize matrices according to what, and how you encode. That's why the standard allows those settings to be configuarable during the encoding process.
The point is that most people would rather use a more reasonable compression ratio, and a quantize matrix designed with this in mind. No, that's not even the point. The point is that not EVERYBODY is willing to accept a low bitrate encode.
You assume this simply because someone says they don't like them. How is that any better then someone criticizing them without trying them?I do respect what others do find. What I don't respect is what other creeps say without even trying, just by followint the tide.
Ok, I'm definitely done now. I don't want to get into all this.
-
Lock the thread, adam, or the Dark Side awaits.
-
Where! Where!....please tell me where?I think some people can't admit that there are formats that have a better quality/compression ratio over Kwags formats.Oscar.
-
The Old One
- Aug 2000
- Hellas (Greece), E.U.
-
And just before this threat lock, let me clearify a bit more:
I PM Lord, about the Portogual issue, the same time I gave a warning to pacheco.
I don't gave him a warning, because his Americanocentric approach and expression he has at times (you know, the one who piss you off for good if you are not American...) is not his fault. This is how many Americans grow up. You don't change that easy, just because you enter the internet. You need time...
Anyway, I know that he learns by his mistakes and never repait the same mistake twice.
You pacheco, repait the same thing not only on this threat, but also elsewhere in this forum. I've crossposted with you plenty of times, to keep in track.
And the warning I gave you wasn't specific for this threat, but for your overall approach in this community.
As I see, now you behave better, so you could do that, the first place...
Why had a warning to be used?
Anyway, I'm out of this threat. After all, many mods appeared. Let them decide what to do with it...
PS: The internet users don't have age. There are 12 year olds here as 75 years old, talking for the same things with the same flame, prooving that age is something determined only by your body...
-
Why you think so?Originally Posted by adam
-
Xvid, DivxOriginally Posted by Oscar wallace
-
I believe the correct answer was: It IS worth it to some people. It is NOT worth it to others.
-
Because it uses very aggressive settings. It is aimed at diminishing artifacts which simply won't be present when using reasonable compression ratios.Originally Posted by Abond
-
Divx/Xvid. Both also have players out that specifically support it, unlike kwags modified templates where its a guessing game.LanEvo7 wrote:
I think some people can't admit that there are formats that have a better quality/compression ratio over Kwags formats.
Let me know when you find one!
You can go ahead and try to argue this, but its a fact that mpeg4 codecs offer better compression/quality than mpeg1/2, especially at lower bitrates.
-
This thread is surely an artifact in the "Matrix"!!!!
-
Caig Truker wrote
Are there any serious alternatives that will run on most DVD players?Oscar wallace wrote:
Quote:
I think some people can't admit that there are formats that have a better quality/compression ratio over Kwags formats.
Where! Where!....please tell me where?
Xvid, Divx
-
yep, half D1 with a heavy noise filter. gives exactly the same results as the kwag templates and is dvd compliant to boot.
-
Hi mike,
Nope, according to the majority of users in this site -x-/K/M or whatever is all crap. Stick to (S)VCD/DVD!
No need for me to explain why, of course.
I'm just catching up on the way we're all entitled to act upon questions such as yours'.
Browsing this whole thread you will understand why.
Regards,
Rui
Similar Threads
-
MPG to KVCD HELP
By G33333 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 12Last Post: 25th Dec 2007, 06:00 -
KVCD
By Bat21UK in forum Authoring (DVD)Replies: 7Last Post: 22nd Dec 2007, 15:31 -
2 hours plus on one kvcd - how?
By t41 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 1Last Post: 16th Sep 2007, 11:08 -
Xvid to KVCD
By mjaeson in forum Video ConversionReplies: 8Last Post: 25th May 2007, 20:05 -
KVCD to DVD
By buttzilla in forum Video ConversionReplies: 2Last Post: 6th May 2007, 08:01