Step-By-Step DVD to SVCD Challenge!

[homerpez]

Hey everyone!

The challenge is... to convince people like me (who only do VCD's or variants) to do SVCD's instead. How?

Please post the entire process you do to make a good SVCD. As an example, I'll post how I can make a normal VCD, and we can compare.

I'm doing this because there must be a good "rule of thumb" how to do SVCD's from DVD consistently, but so many settings along the way, plus interlace problems, etc.

MY VCD STEPS.

1) RIP DVD (Smartripper)

2) Convert in DVD2AVI. I always do "Forced FILM", since it removes interlace, and 23.967 is supported VCD resolution, so no rate conversion necessary for encoding!

3) Open video project file in TMPGEnc (and WAV audio). I always double-check source aspect (it's 99% right, but just to make sure), but I always change the input format to "Progressive", since it detects interlaced, but is no longer because of FILM mode...

I now always do MPEG-1 VBR (MIN 0, AVG 900*, MAX 2500). No filtering except for "Soften Block Noise". "No search per half px", but I think maybe I should not use that.

*Changes to make the file fit on one CD


That's it. Using these programs (or maybe CCE), I would lie to know what I need to change to make me a good SVCD. All while ovetrcoming Interlacing, field order, and resolution. Start-to-finish.

I'm sure lots of people needing "VCD Help" will appreciate it! Thanks!

[The_Flash]

Doom9 has a pretty decent guide which you can follow relatively easily. (especially since youre familiar with VCD creation)

I would highly recommend using CCE v2.50 rather than TMPG. I say v2.50 because you will be able to framserve via the MPEG2DEC.dll & AviSynth method which speeds the encoding process up drastically.(v2.62 doesn't allow this) That guide is also on his site.

http://www.doom9.net/

[poopyhead]

heh.....i disagree with The_Flash on cce being better quality than tempgenc....i still think tempgenc has better quality, but cce is faster....

anywayz, go download a SVCD clip from this site and you'll see the difference.....when i started ripping DVD's, i did them into VCDs....but then i found out about SVCDs and compared the same movie...DAMN, the difference was huge (i.e. sometimes there would be scrolling lines of text in a movie such as credits....VCD wouldn't be able to show those texts clearly, in fact barely readable, however, SVCD made those texts crystal clear) Also, SVCD really comes into play during high action, high motion scenes...with the lower bitrate and smaller filesize of VCD, there would be blockiness....not in SVCD if done at a high enough bitrate

also, i make SVCD the same that u make VCD smartripper->dvd2avi->tempgenc...u only need to change the settings in tempgenc to encode into SVCD, rather than VCD

[homerpez]

I'm assuming you mean at HIGH bitrates?

I aim to fit a whole movie on 1 CD, SVCD can't do this... as far as I know...

There has to be more to it... unless you can encode Forced FILM in MPEG-2, and 3:2 pulldown works without screwing it up...

[Beavis]

SVCD has plenty of advantages over VCD for some people and applications. Since you only want to fit maximum time per disc you might not care as much. However, if you lower the resolution from 480X480 (making it non-standard) and use variable bitrate encoding you might do a little better than the corresponding VCD. You'd have to try it.

[wildcatfan]

Well my SVCD goes a little like this.....

1) Rip with Smartripper.

2) Then use DVD2AVI to create a project (and downsample and downmix the audio) then use vfapi convert to readable avi.

3) Use VirtualDub to resize (I usually use 352x480 but if the move is short enough I will use 480x480 or higher) and then....

4) frameserve the video and the seperate audio to LSX 3.5 using somewhere around 1500 Kbps avg 2500 max for the video and usually 192 for audio. I use 23.976 fps for all film stuff, for interlace I ust use VDub to deinterlace and go ahead and encode to 29.97 to avoid jumpiness. I use LSX because a) it's faster than TMPG even with all the resizing and frameserving b) CCE has issues with my comp with lower than v2.62 and I can't get 2.62 to accept the frameserve. Finally c) TMPGenc just has issues joining and cutting the mpeg files it generates (mpeg2 at least) AND I think LSX 3.5 looks as good if not better than TMPGenc on my TV (notice on my TV). TMPGenc has less banding (LSX much better than previous version) but it's picture is a little TOO smoothed for me and LSX looks much sharper on the TV and much of the banding is disguised on the TV. For watching on the computer however TMPGenc is probably slightly better.

5) Now demux (or just don't delete the temp files that LSX creates and use it) and use pulldown to insert the flags for 3:2 pulldown on playback (for 23.976 of course). Then remux.

6) Use mpgXmps to convert the file to .mps file for I-Author. Then Author the SVCD in I-Author. Burn the image and good to go.


Michael

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wildcatfan on 2001-07-19 20:23:54 ]</font>

[The_Flash]

I'm suprised that there is still even a debate over which encoder is better. You can't tell me TMPGEnc's 2-pass VBR bests CCE's 3-pass. The algo's used in CCE's coding are top-notch, part of the reason the program is so pricey. TMPG also takes far too long to complete an average job.

[homerpez]

<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 2001-07-19 21:38:18, The_Flash wrote:
I'm suprised that there is still even a debate over which encoder is better. You can't tell me TMPGEnc's 2-pass VBR bests CCE's 3-pass. The algo's used in CCE's coding are top-notch, part of the reason the program is so pricey. TMPG also takes far too long to complete an average job.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I think maybe the debate is more "Is it worth it?"

I just tried to do an MPEG-1 VCD (VBR) using CCE, and what I noticed is that the picture was clean, but not that much cleaner than TMPGEnc. And this was 4-pass!

And with all the project files, text editing, tweaking, tricking and multiplexing (perhaps the wrong way at that)... I don't think its worth it!

TMPGEnc, all I have to do is run through DVD2AVI first, then encode from the product. That's it!

I think with sharpness/anti-block filters both on, TMPGenc can also look as nice as CCE's product.

I'd group CCE along with Cleaner 5 as being an "OK" product, but one I would not pay more than $40 for.

[homerpez]

That's for MPEG-1, of course... I can't speak on MPEG-2 yet, since I have not yet tried...

Would anyone here say that CCE is better than TMPGEnc BETA 12 at MPEG-2? (That's the plain BETA 12, supposed to be the best at this of all the versions)

[disturbed1]

Try DVD2SVCD.

http://212.88.77.140/
forum topic here http://pub28.ezboard.com/fdoom9smpegforumfrm34

This program rips, decodes, encodes, then authors. Leaving you with either an I-author created .cif file, or bin/cue created by VCDImager.

You'll need some support apps. All are free, except CCE 2.50.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: disturbed1 on 2001-07-20 06:45:18 ]</font>

[The_Flash]

I've honestly only ever used CCE for MPEG-2, so I cannot comment on it's MPEG-1 capabilities either. Back in the day when I still did VCD I used Panasonic's MPEG encoder, I thought that was pretty good.

I really don't see how encoding with CCE becomes more complex than TMPG either. Once you have AviSynth installed and two .avs files written (One for 16:9 and one for 4:3) all you need to do is load the right one into CCE. You can just keep using the same .avs files for future encodes, too. Essentially it's just DVD2AVI, load the .avs, click your options (zigzag scan & progressive frames normally) and then "encode". I would never allow TMPG to mux my files either, as bbMpeg does a much nicer job of this. (Scan offsets and sync frames)

[WMike]

I'm really new at ripping. So far, I've followed, to the letter, the guide on this site written by Sefy. The results I've gotten have been very nice and very satisfactory for me, and haven't taken too long. I am going to try using CCE and some other options.......because I can .

In Sefy's template, he doesn't say anything about resizing to 480 x 480, thus my rips have been non-compliant SVCD's. It hasn't been a problem at all thus far. Could it be down the road? Should I be resizing?

Mike

[Sully]

If your talking about it being worth it or not really depnds on what you want to achieve.

If you're looking for a quick & easy way to fit a whole movie onto 1 CD & have it at least watchable, then yes, TMPGEnc & VCD.

If you want to have high quality while still getting up to an hour of film per CD (which comes to be 2 CD's for MOST movies) then it's CCE & SVCD.

I tried VCD first. Heard about SVCD, tried it & I'll NEVER go back! CCE seems to be very difficult. True there's a few more steps & programs involved in the process, but once you've done it once or twice, it's quite simple.

One more thing. If TMPGEnc is so easy how come most of the posts on this forum are dealing with one problem or another with it? I'm not cutting it down. It does produce good results. If you have around 2 days to encode once all the filters & stuff is added to make it have good results. With CCE you load your file, set your bitrates, make one or 2 checkmarks & off you go.

[zeppsstteerr]

I've used the guide from this site many times with nothing but fantastic results. Give it a try.

http://www.dvdripguides.com

To my eyes the output looks just as good as the original.

[homerpez]

<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 2001-07-20 12:08:19, Sully wrote:
One more thing. If TMPGEnc is so easy how come most of the posts on this forum are dealing with one problem or another with it? I'm not cutting it down. It does produce good results. If you have around 2 days to encode once all the filters & stuff is added to make it have good results. With CCE you load your file, set your bitrates, make one or 2 checkmarks & off you go.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Well.. my answer to that?... Most people don't know enough about the CCE method to even ASK questions about it! All the things you need to do are hacking this file and that (not to cut it down)... I'll still plan on trying it for SVCD, if I ever do that, but I'll be so tempted to fit a movie on one CD that I'll not get the best results from it... with TMPGenc, it's fairly simplified (though still lots of options to screw up), at least it's easier to get started...

On my latest TMPGEnc, the only filers I use are "Soften Block Noise", and now I'm trying a "Sharpen Edge" of 45, 45. Then I'm taking down the "Motion Estimation" from HIGHEST to HIGH, and that actually takes less time than I did before! (Also less time than CCE did for a 4-pass... but I'll leave that alone)

I do plan on trying out an SVCD (probably using the Sefy method of smaller res) soon, and I'll give CCE a try for that...

[AntnyMD]

The version of CCE seems to only work on NT & 2000. Is there one floating around for 98SE/Me? Then I'll try it.

I'm making my first encodes today using the plain beta 12 of TMPGEnc, since 12h starting having issues on a 94% complete file that had been encoding for more than 16 hours. I was thoroughly disappointed. I cant wait to get home to see the results.

[The_Flash]

I've run CCE v2.50 and v2.62 on WinME machines with Athlon processors.

[VidGuy]

Couple of things - CCE 4-pass is WAY overkill. 2 pass is usually good enough, rarely need more than 3. Remember, 1-pass CCE is like 2-pass TMPGEnc....

I've also run CCE v2.50 and v2.62 on Athlon machines with WinMe, Win2K and winXP...

Also, be careful with the sharpen filter. Remember, MPEG does not like sharp lines. The sharper the lines, the more bits it takes to represent the transition. That's why you don't want letterboxing to happen off of a 16-pixel (macroblock) boundary if you can help it.

[gf]

homerpez or anyone else, this is a real stupid question but I cannot find in TMPGenc a filter that is listed as "Soften Block Noise", could you PLEASE help

[homerpez]

I think under "Quantize Mix" or something, it's one of the checkboxes below, and it should have defaults of "35,35"...

(This is from memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong)