KSCVD?

[FulciLives]

If the Matrix is too far out-of-whack then you end up with a non-compliant DVD even though you are otherwise using DVD settings elsewhere (i.e., DVD template in TMPGEnc Plus for instance).

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[flaninacupboard]

i happen to have BTTF on DVD so did a quick test. i encoded the same portion of the film. i encoded with TMPGenc into 704x480 with the movie in a 672x320 letterbox as per that clip. i encoded at 2270kbps VBR as per that clip. it looked a bit blocky. i turned on the noise filter and set it to 12 1 24. it looks better than your clip.

for me though, the killer is here: www.geocites.com/flaninacupboard/back.htm

I choose normal DVD mpeg because it gives the best quality. that's it.

[FulciLives]

... for me though, the killer is here: www.geocites.com/flaninacupboard/back.htm

I choose normal DVD mpeg because it gives the best quality. that's it.

Can't get your link to work!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

i had to turn off block pop ups for it to load ---

[rds_correia]

the middle pic above is really bad -- what is that supposed to prove ? that people like macroblocks

Hi BJ_M,
I guess you were in a hurry to get into the conversation, right?
There are 4 pics above.
Pick the one you want but don't say it's the one from the middle when there is no middle.

bottom pic is non movement and doesnt do anything -- might as well post a jpeg as that is about what that would be .. though look around the faces edges..

True that its almost a still picture.
Not so sure about your jpeg, though.
The faces edges? This is Back to the Future I.
The movie is from 1984/85.
The source is bad as hell, with a LOT of noise.
I'd say this picture is almost better than my original BTTF.
I agree with one thing: pictures are hardly the best way to proove anything.
Just try the mpeg sample.
If you have the original movie in DVD you'll understand what I mean .
Cheers

[flaninacupboard]

whole link is dead of just the pictures dead?

[FulciLives]

whole link is dead of just the pictures dead?

Sorry whole link is dead.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[flaninacupboard]

try hitting www.geocities.com/flaninacupboard then clicking on back.htm

[FulciLives]

try hitting www.geocities.com/flaninacupboard then clicking on back.htm

OK that works

The second picture is huge. I am assuming it was 720x480 anamorphic and you resized it to 960x480?

What size is the KVCD (still not clear to me if that is KVCD or KSVCD or whatever) image?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[flaninacupboard]

the kdvd image is the one pacheco already posted, it's 704x480, but the video is only 672x320. the image i put up is, as you guessed, resized anamorphic - albeit 1024x576.

[lordsmurf]

rds_correia, if you knew who BJ_M was and where he works, I don't think you'd be smarting off like you just did

Ladies and gentlemen ... that made my day!

[BJ_M]

the middle pic above is really bad -- what is that supposed to prove ? that people like macroblocks

Hi BJ_M,
I guess you were in a hurry to get into the conversation, right?
There are 4 pics above.
Pick the one you want but don't say it's the one from the middle when there is no middle.

bottom pic is non movement and doesnt do anything -- might as well post a jpeg as that is about what that would be .. though look around the faces edges..

True that its almost a still picture.
Not so sure about your jpeg, though.
The faces edges? This is Back to the Future I.
The movie is from 1984/85.
The source is bad as hell, with a LOT of noise.
I'd say this picture is almost better than my original BTTF.
I agree with one thing: pictures are hardly the best way to proove anything.
Just try the mpeg sample.
If you have the original movie in DVD you'll understand what I mean .
Cheers

i'm never in a hurry for anything ..


ok -- i mean 3rd down pic is bad ..

i mean about the jpeg is that a I frame still image of a mpeg2 is almost a jpeg ... with out ident. these as I or B or P or G frames ... they dont mean much to me -- nor without motion clip ..

Just because it is a 1984 movie means nothing .. if the IP or neg was scanned properly -- the quality is just as good as anything today -- as those neg's would be in still good shape .. I am doing right now for a commercial dvd series , some material that was filmed in the 70's and its still great .....
I have that (BTTF) on laser disk - not dvd , so i cant really say what the quality is like on the dvd , but i seem to recall the LD was pretty good.

[flaninacupboard]

i have the PAL pan and scan analogue sound releases.... Horrible!

the DVD is such an improvement... well, i'll actually watch it, can't say better than that!

He did provide a motion clip, did you not look at it BJ_M?

[BJ_M]

i didnt see it

sorry

[flaninacupboard]

i've been meaning to ask, your current avatar, are they the criterion colour bars?

[BJ_M]

just smpte color bars ..........


ok - i looked at the clip ...

m-probe says the timestamps are corrupt and out of spec and non dvd compliant , v-dubmod also throws up some errors but plays it ok ..

VBV buffer shows underflow

anywhere there is movment -- the video turns to mush (watch the feet on the pedal as an example or the terrorist head when he ducks on the roof) ..

mind you - these dark scene shots dont require a lot of bits to start with ..

and the avg bit rate is only 1835 .. so in that context , for that bit rate - the pic i guess is fine if you enjoy watching vcd quality on dvd ..

perhaps the source is not great - hard to say .. but it sure is noisy and lots of motion blur and just nasty looking ...

[lordsmurf]

Now, lordsmurf, could you PLEASE explain to me why that is no good? Can you tell us WHY that looks (to you) like crap?

Like BJ_M said, macroblocks. Amoeba, but present, especially on any sort of motion where it actually had some light/color.

The thing that always gets me is samples using "k" anything are all dark or similar colors. The whole thing is dark. That tells me nothing. Give me a clip recorded off the tv's evening news. Or maybe an old VHS movie of mommy feeding junior mashed cucumbers.

It also uses progressive source (or maybe IVTC). Again, useless for anybody with VHS, SVHS, cable, satellite, broadcast, etc.

And you're coming down from perfect commercial source here. What's the point? Just buy an extra disc or two and use DVD Shrink and get it over with in less time.

This looks like a DVD Shrink backup with no deep analysis. It has all the same attributes of a quick compressed-domain transcode in quality. Maybe DVD2ONE.

If "k" formats are only intended for use with commercial progressive/IVTC source as a way to backup several DVD rips to fewer discs, then I retract my comments on "not good quality" down to "backup quality". Then again, maybe not (it's a bit premature to say this since the sample MPEG in my opinion is not a good mark for quality purposes, not for this kind of test, I need to see better source than an ultra-dark scene).

For anything not fitting than narrow description I just gave, yes, I still think the "format" (read: not a format at all, just "x" flavor) is quite inferior to true encoding methods.

It's nice at maintaining the blacks with no corruption, but it seems to have an inverse effect, making all the lights have the same issues of badly encoded darks (or transcoded darks) when using official to-spec encodes with compliant matrices.

[FulciLives]

I noticed a lot of motion blur on the very fast moving shot of the cars racing next to each other with the camera panning left to right ... it just didn't "look right". I think more than just compression problems were going on there.

Overall it didn't look bad I suppose but then again I only watched it on a 13" TV

Still though what good is it even if the quality was A-plus (which it wasn't) when the file is non-compliant?

My answer: worthless!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[flaninacupboard]

i've got the same clip from the original DVD if anyone wishes to see it, just need somewhere to host it.

[lordsmurf]

I just looked around at kwag's forums. Seems a bunch of people aren't really that happy with KDVD, for all the reasons listed in earlier posts in this thread.

AND IT REQUIRES YOU TO DEINTERLACE !!!
Run for the hills people! Run for the hills!

[LanEvo7]

Tried KVCD and didn't really like it. I didn't think the quality of it was better than VCD to justify spending so much more time on encoding it. Of course there are some that are going to disagree with me. Try like a small one minute clip and see if you like it.

Also there are issues regarding compliancy. I think if you don't mind encoding non-compliant files, its better to use MPEG4(Divx or Xvid) since you can get much better quality than any of the K formats. Both also supports interlacing.

[BJ_M]

ok -- here is a short clip , re-encoded from a dvd that was made from a dv source (shot right by my house in fact) .. so its not a perfect perfect source either -- but not to shabby .. i made the original dvd ..

I re-encoded it at the same bitrate as the KDVD to compare ..

the source is interlaced and i encoded it interlaced .... it was shot wide screen mode and to match the kdvd i letterboxed it also ...


method -- 1 click standard settings - NO different matrix or anything else ..

can someone guess the the encoder ?

http://www.simex.ca/images/new.m2v

[BJ_M]

ok --- i really am pushing it ..

same encoder and clip

now encoded at 1398 bit rate (lower than KDVD) -- 1 different setting than above-
otherwise all standard settings ..


http://www.simex.ca/images/new2.m2v

i am just trying to prove a point (i think) , that you dont need magic 8 balls to make good mpeg files ..

[andybno1]

well I dont get what the whole hullabaloo is about KVCD/DVD/SVCD I have done extended versions of lotr 1 & 2 which bear in mind are 2DVDs I managed to bung both extended versions onto 2 dvd so thats 4 dvds bunged onto 2 dvds and I have to say the quality is very good cant tell much difference in pic unless u zoom in on the KDVD but why zoom in on a film to spot bad bits when its such SWEET quality in normal view oh yeah and I had forced subs for elvish language and 2 ac3 streams and well I seen no loss of quality when added all together.

so I'm guessin the anti-kvcd/dvd/svcd ppl on here are ppl who have have:
a. attempted KVCD/dvd/svcd and not done it right
or
b. never even bothered to have a go at doin a KVCD/DVD/SVCD

and to the latter of the two ppl I say dont nock till you try yaself properly that is. Kwags templates aren't just a case of bung source into tmpgenc, select template then click start u know, theres avs script involved an a matrix aswell and when bunged together u get amazin results.

LONG LIVE KVCD/DVD/SVCD

[lordsmurf]

well I dont get what the whole hullabaloo is about KVCD/DVD/SVCD I have done extended versions of lotr 1 & 2 which bear in mind are 2DVDs I managed to bung both extended versions onto 2 dvd so thats 4 dvds bunged onto 2 dvds and I have to say the quality is very good cant tell much difference in pic unless u zoom in on the KDVD but why zoom in on a film to spot bad bits when its such SWEET .........................

Please learn to use real words and punctuation. I have no idea what you just tried to say.

the source is interlaced and i encoded it interlaced ..........
can someone guess the the encoder ?

Umm... those look like they are deinterlaced with drop-field.

Anyway ... two guesses: MC 1.4 or Procoder 1.5

[flaninacupboard]

there's a third group of people, those who didn't buy their DVD players in a supermarket.

Just click on the link I posted up there. look at the difference between that kdvd effort and the original DVD. now believe it or not, you can see the difference on your TV screen.....
Well, that's assuming you have a widescreen set and your player isn't hooked up through composite cables. or RF.

[disturbed1]

Mainconcept? Perhaps with the built in noise reduction enabled.

[BJ_M]

my precious

[BJ_M]

Mainconcept? Perhaps with the built in noise reduction enabled.

nope

and no filters used

[andybno1]

well I dont get what the whole hullabaloo is about KVCD/DVD/SVCD I have done extended versions of lotr 1 & 2 which bear in mind are 2DVDs I managed to bung both extended versions onto 2 dvd so thats 4 dvds bunged onto 2 dvds and I have to say the quality is very good cant tell much difference in pic unless u zoom in on the KDVD but why zoom in on a film to spot bad bits when its such SWEET .........................

Please learn to use real words and punctuation. I have no idea what you just tried to say.

oh get mr high an mighty, real words and punctuation? its only the net not an essay or anything important so why bother? if u took time out and read it properly u would know what I said

[lordsmurf]

try hitting www.geocities.com/flaninacupboard then clicking on back.htm

Wow ... look how badly KDVD puked the colors into dark oblivion.

BJ_M ... I'm thinking Procoder ... but I have this sneaky suspicion you're doing it with TMPGENC Express. I really have no idea.

oh get mr high an mighty, real words and punctuation? its only the net not an essay or anything important so why bother? if u took time out and read it properly u would know what I said

I can't read blathering gibberish, sorry.