ShiZZZoN- I have made a NEW Rainbow Book Standard Movie Form

[sean madison]

this test was the show u that my new format works on dvd players that only support standard movie formats

the reason y it had blocks was because the clip had been encoded 3 diff times because i did not have the orginal avi

i said the quality of this new format looked like normal standard because it does but i could not prove it because i didnt have origanal avi

if u dont believe me dl the mpg file thats on this topic

the price maybe changed or canceled

[KennyC]

<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 2002-01-05 20:34:40, sean madison wrote:
the reason y it had blocks was because the clip had been encoded 3 diff times because i did not have the orginal avi

i said the quality of this new format looked like normal standard because it does but i could not prove it because i didnt have origanal avi

if u dont believe me dl the mpg file thats on this topic

the price maybe changed or canceled</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Hiya ShiZZZon,

Me again Hehehe...

I thought it would've made sense to put your BEST FOOT 1st, meaning if it was me, I would've done a TEST .MPG from an original DVD so that the results were the BEST possible, not from an encode, from an encode, from an encode of an .AVI . (I did d/l from the link on this thread)

Pleasez send me the template so I can do a TEST with my favorite DVD, The Mummy Returns, the 1st 5 minutes shows an flaws with your template quality.

Cheerz.

[kwag]

Here are the statistics of the such "faf" file. Anyone who knows about MPEG can re-create the template.

Here is the output of BitrateViewer on the file:

Num. of picture read: 1800
Stream type: MPEG-2 MP@ML VBR
Resolution: 480*480
Aspect ratio: 4:3 Generic
Framerate: 29.97
Nom. bitrate: 1200000 Bit/Sec
VBV buffer size: 24
Constrained param. flag: No
Chroma format: 4:2:0
DCT precision: 10
Pic. structure: Frame
Field topfirst: Yes
DCT type: Frame
Quantscale: Nonlinear
Scan type: ZigZag
Frame type: Progressive
Notes:

So the template is using a VBR of 1200bps. Period. And the blockiness sucks big time.

WANT TO FIT 55 to 60 MINUTES OF HIGH QUALITY 720X480 MPEG-1 XVCD ON A 80 MINUTE CD-R?.

Then check here:

http://briefcase.yahoo.com/mpeg_test

Download the samples and say what you think.

Cheers.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-05 23:10:43 ]</font>

[next]

I took a peek in Bitrate Viewer as well. I pretty much figured that using an mpeg1 stream would be better at that bit rate. But what's the big deal here. Using an mpeg1 stream makes it simply an XVCD with VBR and increased resolution. No big deal. Been done for a long time.

[kwag]

<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 2002-01-05 23:48:13, next wrote:
I took a peek in Bitrate Viewer as well. I pretty much figured that using an mpeg1 stream would be better at that bit rate. But what's the big deal here. Using an mpeg1 stream makes it simply an XVCD with VBR and increased resolution. No big deal. Been done for a long time.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

You're right next. But some people just can't accept that MPEG-1 is better than MPEG-2 at lower bit rates!. What I am refering above is that I am getting 55 to 60 minutes on a 80 minute CD-R with VBR MPEG-1 720x480 at 2000bps with almost DVD quality. And I have been doing this for a very Loooooooooong time!.

The link above has samples and the template.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-06 00:14:14 ]</font>

[KennyC]

ShiZZon,

You are more likely to make money from a brand new encoding program than from a textfile template.

[iomega400]

This is GodD*mn Amazing it works great and i know shizzzon and he is a video editing God and if he gets a DVD rip the quality will be 20x better, he has helped me with soo much stuff and i thank him. He can make many movies look like they have no blocks. So shizzon knows what he talkin about.

[sean madison]

For one yall, i dont use vbr, but u can, but if u burn it, it WONT play in Standard format dvd players, haha
no program can tell u what i did and u can keep on trying-
You will realize that what u r doing doesnt work, and i spend 4 whole hrs finding this format so keep trying.

Maybe u'll find out that this might be worth money-
Oh and one more thing-

Using vbr to hold ONLY and i mean ONLY 55-60 min on 80 min cd is pathetic as hell!!

I can take that vbr setting and make a 2hr movie work in STANDARD SVCD FORMAT!!! thats what this is all about. PEACE

[Kdiddy]

"But some people just can't accept that MPEG-1 is better than MPEG-2 at lower bit rates!. What I am refering above is that I am getting 55 to 60 minutes on a 80 minute CD-R with VBR MPEG-1 720x480 at 2000bps with almost DVD quality. And I have been doing this for a very Loooooooooong time!.
"

Here you go spreading your BS again....clearing this up for any Newbs that may read any of this

There is NO WAY you are fitting 55-60 mins worth of video at 2000 bps on a 80 min CDR....is there no audio?!?!?, man use a bitrate calculcator for a change...at 55 mins, best video bitrate you get is 1904 bps, and that is with 64 bps audio...I doubt you audio quality is that low...at best, with your audio at 128 bps..you will get max ~1670 bps video (60 mins) and ~1850 (55mins)...man you REALLY need to STOP with your over exaggerations....and again, anyone with any REAL knowledge, knows that mpeg1 & mpeg2 have the same compression schemes, thus at equal bitrates & resolutions they perform the SAME, any difference is NOT a fault of the mpeg1 vs. mpeg2, but a fault of the ENCODER itself...ie, TMPG does better at mpeg1 than mpeg2, CCE does better at mpeg2 than mpeg1, because of how they were written, NOT because of compression schemes...other faults are attributed to encoding parameters set by the user.

[boston]

I've been creating low bitrate XVCDs (from 352x288 up to 480x480) to fill an 80min CD with a full movie for ages now, to play on my Sony DVP-FX1 (which ONLY plays STANDARD VCDs) - by simply changing the Stream type in the settings 'System' tab in TMPGEnc to "MPEG-1 Video-CD (non-standard)". So that's how that part is accomplished.

I have also spent hours tweaking the settings to try to get less macroblocks (have done as much as I can - but there is no way to compete with the original templates).

I'm sure ShiZZZoN's template will be good for some people - like me - who don't mind the getting more on a disc at the expense of reduced quality for an XVCD that can play on fussy DVD players like mine - but it is easy to figure out a template for yourself.

[KennyC]

<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 2002-01-05 23:09:23, kwag wrote:
WANT TO FIT 55 to 60 MINUTES OF HIGH QUALITY 720X480 MPEG-1 XVCD ON A 80 MINUTE CD-R?.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Hi kwag,

Tried your method, looks crisp and clear until quick action moves, then IMHO, excessive macroblocks. Also encode time blows out by out 3.5 times with my AMD XP 1800+, goes from about 4 hours to 14 hours which were TMPGEnc estimates, I didn't complete for obvious reasons.

Also it plays on one of my DVD stand-alones but not the other, no good if you share your VCD's.

Cheerz.



©.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-- KennyC --·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.©



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KennyC on 2002-01-06 03:05:21 ]</font>

[Kdiddy]

"Tried your method, looks crisp and clear until quick action moves, then IMHO, excessive macroblocks."

"Also it plays on one of my DVD stand-alones but not the other, no good if you share your VCD's."

, Another satisifed customer huh Kwag? LOL

[sean madison]

OK, lets start all over, agreed?

The whole point of this is i can take a movie over 80 min long and make it vcd standard or svcd standard.
Thats my point.
For the people who dont believe, go here- http://shizzzon.xk5.org/test.htm
This is not a quality test as this was previously encoded twice already.
This is to prove the file size its in and that it will work in standard dvd players only.

Well all know again-
VCD= 1 min - 10 mb
SVCD= 1 min ~ 20 mb

My test-
SVCD- 1 min = 7.01 MB and can be reduced smaller for larger movies

Again, if u dont beleive me, dl the clip and burn it to a cd.

[kv5]

What has happened to the D/Load link http://shizzzon.xk5.org/test.htm - Connection refused ?

[kwag]

kdiddy wrote:
"There is NO WAY you are fitting 55-60 mins worth of video at 2000 bps on a 80 min CDR...."


Yo must be stupid kdiddy. Knock out your Bull.... and download the samples. I get 55-60 minutes at 720x480 with 224khz audio.

Look at the sample size that is about 16 seconds and the file size is about 4 mega bytes. So it's about 15 megabytes per minute or less.

Where did you study your math kdiddy?. Kinder!.

http://briefcase.yahoo.com/mpeg_test

As far as compatibility players for this format tested so far, here they are again:

Panasonic RP-56
Panasonic portable L-10
Pioneer 333
JVC XV-F80BK 7 disk changer
Panasonic DMR-E20S DVD-R/DVD-RAM Recorder/Player






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-06 08:22:43 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-06 08:25:33 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-06 08:26:53 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-06 08:27:35 ]</font>

[kwag]

<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 2002-01-06 03:02:01, KennyC wrote:
<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 2002-01-05 23:09:23, kwag wrote:
WANT TO FIT 55 to 60 MINUTES OF HIGH QUALITY 720X480 MPEG-1 XVCD ON A 80 MINUTE CD-R?.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Hi kwag,

Tried your method, looks crisp and clear until quick action moves, then IMHO, excessive macroblocks. .....
Cheerz.



©.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-- KennyC --·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.©



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KennyC on 2002-01-06 03:05:21 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>


Yes, but did you download the regular VCD sample, and compare the blocks against the 720x480?.

Look again and see that the 720X480 is less blocky than the standard VCD.

Both were made with TMPG.
The macro blocks on the standard VCD are 4 times bigger.
So on the high speed scenes, the VCD looks blocky and on
the 720x480 it looks blurred.

Playback both mpegs with PowerDVD in slow motion on the "flyby", and there you will see what I mean.

And on the real DVD, the high speed scenes also look blurred, so what's the difference?.

[sean madison]

I know quality is our must but come on.
I HATE 2 cds and everyone else does do if it can be one.
Trust me, if u really agree what i've done satisies u and blows ur mind away, u WILL get the guide!

[kwantum]

shizzzon-
i cant access the website...
i get a cannot find server error

[Guyver]

I would love to test but you page seems to be offline

[Whatever2001]

**** that!!!
If you're not gonna release it to VCDhelp...
Good luck selling it....

[y2flyy]

sean where is your method
is it the shizzon template thats on vcdhelp
and another thing Ive been following your argument and i see what you are saying.
You asked us to d/l the test yesterday not to show us quality but to show us that you can fit it on one cd if you wanted too
i even thought at first that that sample looked pretty bad.
I hope you can prove it b/c I got your point
so show us how to do it already
Its bad that you're trying to make money out of this
just get your props man dont be so greedy
we would have respect you more if you would have just show us a long time aog then you wouldnt be arguing.
My 2 flyy cents
Y2Flyy

[Kdiddy]

"Yo must be stupid kdiddy. Knock out your Bull.... and download the samples. I get 55-60 minutes at 720x480 with 224khz audio.
Look at the sample size that is about 16 seconds and the file size is about 4 mega bytes. So it's about 15 megabytes per minute or less.
Where did you study your math kdiddy?. Kinder!."

I downloaded your crap ass Top Gun sample..and as I expected, good VCD quality period!..not DVD, especially with those nasty blocks on the flyby scene...on which MY DVD doesnt have...secondly, I opened "Bitrate Viewer 1.5" and took a look at your bitrate....geeeeee what did I find, an average bitrate of 1736 bps...hmmm not 2000, another one of your overexaggerations....but since you know your math sooo good, prove it..show me & rest of us just what kind of math you know that allows you fit average 2000 bps with 224 bps audio onto one 80 min CD...Im sure Baldrick would be happy to know that the bitrate calculator (www.vcdhelp.com/calc) he provides on this page is wrong according to you, along with others whom have written bitrate calculators.

"Look again and see that the 720X480 is less blocky than the standard VCD.
Both were made with TMPG.
The macro blocks on the standard VCD are 4 times bigger.
So on the high speed scenes, the VCD looks blocky and on
the 720x480 it looks blurred. "

OF course it does, STANDARD VCD is 1150 bps, yours is 1734 bps...so of course it has more blocks, due to the lack of bitrate, nothing more nothing less.

[kwag]

<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 downloaded your crap ass Top Gun sample..and as I expected, good VCD quality period!..not DVD, especially with those nasty blocks on the flyby scene...on which MY DVD doesnt have...secondly, I opened "Bitrate Viewer 1.5" and took a look at your bitrate....geeeeee what did I find, an average bitrate of 1736 bps...hmmm not 2000, another one of your overexaggerations....but since you know your math sooo good, prove it..show me & rest of us just what kind of math you know that allows you fit average 2000 bps with 224 bps audio onto one 80 min CD...Im sure Baldrick would be happy to know that the bitrate calculator (www.vcdhelp.com/calc) he provides on this page is wrong according to you, along with others whom have written bitrate calculators.

"Look again and see that the 720X480 is less blocky than the standard VCD.
Both were made with TMPG.
The macro blocks on the standard VCD are 4 times bigger.
So on the high speed scenes, the VCD looks blocky and on
the 720x480 it looks blurred. "

OF course it does, STANDARD VCD is 1150 bps, yours is 1734 bps...so of course it has more blocks, due to the lack of bitrate, nothing more nothing less.



</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Man what planet do you live in!. Of course the bitrate is not 2000. That is the MAX in the template. Can't you read the template?.

Now not only you don't know math, but you don't know how to read!.

The 2000 is the MAX for "peaks", but the average is around 1725, and that gives exactly 60 minutes on a 80 minute CD-R.
That is why I choose 2000mbps.

Why do you think that the average is 1725?. Because most scenes don't need more bits. If you were trying to make a full movie that had, say a car chase, for the whole movie then of course the average bitrate would be close to 2000 and only then we couldn't fit 60 minutes of video.

But that is not the case, as every movie has at least 50% of darks scenes/low movement, etc., and that is why you get an average of an hour per CD.

And I'll say this again, for my amusement, and your continuous bitching.
If you do the same video samples that I did, EXACTLY the same but MPEG-2 ( NOT MPEG-1 ) It will look WORSE than a VCD because MPEG-2 below 3000mbps SUCKS big time.

In the sample 720x480 you can see the very very small macroblocks on your tv monitor ( Windows Media or PowerDVD etc ), and because they are so small, when you play back the samples on a regular TV, you can't tell the difference between the original DVD and the XVCD at 720x480. ( Unless of course you have a HDTV, and then you will see the difference ).

And that sample is an old movie, very noisy even on the DVD, so on better newer DVD's it's even better.

So, technically it's not DVD quality on a monitor, but on a regular TV ( and my 60" rear screen proyection ) it looks just like the DVD. Period.

You just can't get it, and I'll tell to you again, MPEG-1 is BETTER than MPEG-2 below 3000mbps because of MPEG-2's DSM-CC extensions, advanced audio coding, RTI extensions and DSM-CC conformance. This extensions are overhead for MPEG-2 decoders, that don't exist for MPEG-1 decoding.

And as I see that you can, at least, read the output of BitRate viewer then go ahead and do the test that I mentioned above with the same template but one clip MPEG-1 and another MPEG-2.

What happened to the Q. level in the MPEG-2?. Sky high eh?.
Do you need an interpreter to read this Kdiddy?.

To further prove the point, here are two 10 second samples from "The mummy returns" processed as described above.

Again:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/mpeg_test

Go into mummy folder.

The MPEG-1 sample is very blocky on the moving scenes, but the MPEG-2 is the shittiest thing I have ever seen!.

Both processed with the same template, same parameters, but one MPEG-1 and the other MPEG-2. Both TMPG Encoder latest version 2.5.

****** To Everyone reading this *********

I hope these samples can stop the debates between MPEG-1 vs. MPEG-2, by letting you actually see the real thing.

They are only 10 seconds each, so the file size are 2,646,020 for the MPEG-1 and 2,723,844 for the MPEG-2.

You can also use BitRateViewer to load each file in a different screen, and look at the Q levels, etc. For more information on please visit:

http://www.tecoltd.com/usersg.htm

*********** To Kdiddy: ********************

If you can't see the difference between these two MPEG files
then please visit:

http://www.pearlevision.com




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kwag on 2002-01-06 18:40:02 ]</font>

[Kdiddy]

LOL...I see you REALLY know how to back pedal...you shouldve been a defensive back on a football team.

"What I am refering above is that I am getting 55 to 60 minutes on a 80 minute CD-R with VBR MPEG-1 720x480 at 2000bps with almost DVD quality"

You dont want people contradict the bullsh!t you put forth, then simply dont write BULLSH!T. The above leads a newbie to think that he can get average vbr rate of 2000 bps on a 80 min CD period! your statement above says nothing of this being the peak!..yes I can read, sure doesnt seem like the word "MAX" is in there anywhere now does it??, again, stop with your over exaggerations of your pathetic crap ass template that not only is NOT close to DVD quality, does NOT contain a bitrate either avg VBR or CBR of 2000 bps, that DOES contain marcoblocks, and ONLY works on 4 machines.

"If you do the same video samples that I did, EXACTLY the same but MPEG-2 ( NOT MPEG-1 ) It will look WORSE than a VCD because MPEG-2 below 3000mbps SUCKS big time. "

Again i say to you, I dont have to, because I KNOW the compression schemes are the SAME, and AGAIN pose to you, if mpeg-2 sucks below 3000 mbps, then why the hell is SVCD standard 480x480 @ ~2500 bps??, and why do most everyone consider SVCD far superior than VCD (mpeg1), if the mpeg2 "SUCKS big time" below 3000, for the last time I IMPLORE you to answer that question, I would love to hear that

"In the sample 720x480 you can see the very very small macroblocks on your tv monitor ( Windows Media or PowerDVD etc ), and because they are so small, when you play back the samples on a regular TV, you can't tell the difference between the original DVD and the XVCD at 720x480. ( Unless of course you have a HDTV, and then you will see the difference )."

Again, PURE BULLSH!T, if you or ANYONE else can not detect the difference in quality from mpeg2 720x480 @ ~5000 bps and mpeg1 720x480 @ ~1700 bps....thats is if it plays on their DVD player to begin with, and if they cant see the obvious macroblocks in that scene....then my great beachfront property in Kansas is still up for sell, I want them to come LOOK at it as well.

"Both processed with the same template, same parameters, but one MPEG-1 and the other MPEG-2. Both TMPG Encoder latest version 2.5. "

Again to requote myself, since you seem to not be able to COMPREHEND english to well "and again, anyone with any REAL knowledge, knows that mpeg1 & mpeg2 have the same compression schemes, thus at equal bitrates & resolutions they perform the SAME, any difference is NOT a fault of the mpeg1 vs. mpeg2, but a fault of the ENCODER itself...ie, TMPG does better at mpeg1 than mpeg2, CCE does better at mpeg2 than mpeg1, because of how they were written, NOT because of compression schemes...other faults are attributed to encoding parameters set by the user."

"If you can't see the difference between these two MPEG files
then please visit:
http://www.pearlevision.com"

ROFLMAO, is that best you can do, when all else fails, use a revised verison of a putdown I used on you..PLEASE tell me you can do better than that!?!?!?, LOL...only thing you missed is the part where you call upon Sefy to back your story, only for him to show up and discredit what you say...LOL

You know what, you dont deserve to have my beautiful Kansas beachfront property, I sell it to some other fool, that claims possesses DVD quality video when more than 1/2 the bitrate is being stripped away and "clear until quick action moves, then IMHO, excessive macroblocks"...yeah REAL DVD quality there, just as long as you are watching grass grow on the screen, but lord forbid that the action should pick up..LOL, and also confuses 2000 bps MAX bitrate with 1735 AVERAGE bitrate, thinks Sears Brand Central employees possess more than basic knowledge of the equipment they sell, and comes up with template that works on 4 machines.. yeah my man you are the poster child under the caption "Ignorance is Bliss".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2002-01-06 20:03:58 ]</font>

[TheInformer]

I've followed thevarious "MPEG-1 vs MPEG-2" discussions with interest for some time. It was my understanding that the MPEG-1 spec is a subset of the MPEG-2 spec? That's why MPEG-2 players can play MPEG-1 files, yes?

The final Sunday night football game is on right now, so I decided to do an AVI capture of a play for about 10 seconds: 352x480 w/HuffYUV codec. The resulting AVI file (SAMPLE.AVI) is approx 62 megs in size. I then used VirtualDub v1.4.7 to field swap, deinterlace, and apply a little dynamic noise reduction (default value used). This file (SAMPLE_A.AVI) ends up being about 91 megs in size.

I used the VideoCD template in TMPGEnc v2.02 to convert the file to MPEG-1 format. I then used the 'Unlock' template to change to encoding type from MPEG-1 to MPEG-2. I changed the CBR encoding to 2 pass VBR with an average bitrate of 1150 (high:1500, low:900), so that it would have the same average rate as the MPEG-1 file.

MPEG-1 file size = 1984KB. MPEG-2 file size = 1987KB.
Media Player v6.4 was used to view both files. Zoom was set to 2X.

I did this procedure on another 10 second capture of the game later on with about the same amount of action in it. The file sizes were roughly the same as those above.

The two clips looked very much alike. If I *had* to choose between the two, I would have chosen the MPEG-2 clip for both test encodings. Mind you, there was very little overall difference though.

Just my two cents...

[Kdiddy]

Watch out Informer...you might get lump into this same "pearlvision" needing boat as me

[TheInformer]

Hehe Kdiddy

I really don't care one way or the other about "which is best" etc etc.

As I said, the 'discussions' were interesting and decided to find out
for myself. I posted the conditions of the capture and the encoding
processes used so a frame of reference could be had.

Hopefully others will conduct their own tests with these same conditions
and make their own determinations - that way there is no rhetoric, just
substantiated results.

What it came down to (IMHO) was subjective judgement of quality.

[kwag]

@Kdiddy

You should be, or are you?, a lawyer.
You do a wonderful job with words.
But most are worthless, and really don't help people that browse these forums looking for answers.

I think that if anyone reviews the history of your posts, which is pretty pathetic, they will really think twice about taking your comment seriously.

And !!YOU!! remind me of an old joke.

"What's the difference between a person and a lawyer?."

***************************
The lawyer only has two organs. A mouth and an ass. And they're interchangeable!.
****************************
This is my last post regarding MPEG-1 vs. MPEG-2.
I will not answer any more posts regarding this topic.

Anyone who still wants to look at the differences, may download the samples that prove the reality, and that you're plain WRONG!.

http://briefcase.yahoo.com/mpeg_test

-- Last Post, signing out! --- ( And LOL ! )

[sean madison]

Ok then, u want the guide, then fine.

I'm tired of reading pointless topics about a topic that has nothing to do about the replies.

It's like in English class-
Ur 3 main points do NOT go back to your thesis.
Instead, it seems that each new point is a new thesis.

Now anyways, i will be letting people dl my guide thru AIM SN- ShiZZZoN

Thats the only way.

[Kdiddy]

"You should be, or are you?, a lawyer.
You do a wonderful job with words.
But most are worthless, and really don't help people that browse these forums looking for answers.
I think that if anyone reviews the history of your posts, which is pretty pathetic, they will really think twice about taking your comment seriously.
And !!YOU!! remind me of an old joke.
"What's the difference between a person and a lawyer?."
***************************
The lawyer only has two organs. A mouth and an ass. And they're interchangeable!. "

As I thought...yes that WAS the best you could do..LOL

"I will not answer any more posts regarding this topic."

Its funny how when ever someone else agrees with me, that there is no difference between mpeg1/mpeg2 at same bitrates & res...you take off...Im still waiting on you SVCD standard is mpeg2 480x480 @ ~2500bps..and as usual you have no answer...bye bye, go pout in the corner as usual.