MPEG-1 (VCD) versus MPEG-2 (SVCD)

[ballfam]

I have a player that can play VCD, XVCD, SVCD, and XSVCD, so I have a world of choice when it comes to converting. After having tried both SVCD and XVCD with multi-pass VBR, I have found that my player does a better job with XVCD, it loads them faster, and can do a multi-speed forward/reverse scan (which it can't seem to manage on SVCD). Also TmpegEnc encodes to MPEG-1 faster, and I don't have to constantly re-install to fix up the 30 day limit. So, to my question, assuming I used a multi-pass variable bitrate encoding with the same average bitrate for both, is there realy any quality diference between XVCD and SVCD, or more acurately, is there any quality difference between MPEG-1 and MPEG-2? I'm stating to get the impression from viewing them that the color depth may not be as high with MPEG-1, but does anyone know the real difference?

[w00kiee]

i would have to say from what i have observed of comments, id say its 50/50 (talking opinions only)

now.. mpeg2 DOES add more to the table than mpeg1 does - besides the non picture qualities. but i really cant tell the difference.. a 720x480 3000 kb/sec vbr mpeg1 up against a 720x480 3000 kb/sec vbr mpeg2 looks the same TO ME. but thats just an opinion.. i do think the difference is marginal enough that if you want to avoid mpeg2 it would be alright to go all xvcd

[Kdiddy]

My personal opinion, under the same conditions, they perform the exact same...the main problem with comparing to formats is that most people around here can only do it based upon the software encoder instead of a professional hardware encoder. I think it is wrong to judge in this way for several reasons, but primarily because I feel that TMPG does a better job at mpeg1 than mpeg2, and CCE does a better job at mpeg2 than mpeg1. However, I dont feel its correct to judge 1 vs. the other based upon biased written software encoders.

[kidkurrupt]

But say if your player can handle SVCD and XSVCD, and you don't mind the speed of the encoding since you'll be away longer than it takes to encode anyway, there's no point doing mpeg-1.

[ballfam]

After some more investigation, it would appear that my AVI compressor is the cause of the color loss (i'm using huffy, which I thought was non lossy....apparuntly not). After staring fron scrach and encoding the same piece of data both ways, I can't realy see any difference between MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, so becaue of the fact that my player likes it better, I'm going with XVCD.

[Vejita-sama]

At the same bitrate and resolution MPEG1 looks the same as MPEG2. Given that you can encode MPEG1 faster, I would stick w/ xVCDs over (x)SVCD.

The reason that MPEG2 is 'superior' to MPEG1 is because it supports more features: interlaced source, multiple angle, multiple audio tracks, selectable subtitles, etc. If you don't use any of these features than stay w/ MPEG1.

[kidkurrupt]

<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 2002-01-13 22:07:15, Vejita-sama wrote:
At the same bitrate and resolution MPEG1 looks the same as MPEG2. Given that you can encode MPEG1 faster, I would stick w/ xVCDs over (x)SVCD.

The reason that MPEG2 is 'superior' to MPEG1 is because it supports more features: interlaced source, multiple angle, multiple audio tracks, selectable subtitles, etc. If you don't use any of these features than stay w/ MPEG1.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Vejita-sama, why is it that everybody always says mpeg-2 looks better than mpeg-1? I think the only reason most people (not including you) say that xvcd is better is because their player cannot support mpeg-2. Doesn't one of those extra features include color definition of some sort?

[ToxIk]

Depending on what your watching the movie, it won't really matter. If your watching the movie on a normal TV then a good bitrate MPEG1/VCD won't look a whole lot different than a good bitrate MPEG2/SVCD. Unless your watching the movie on a DTV or HDTV then you'll start to notice the differences.
Then again, it's also a matter of personal preference.

[kidkurrupt]

It's the interlace feature that makes mpeg2 so much better. That's it.

[Jestorius]

It isn't. It's the higher bitrate and picturesize.

[insane_asylum13]

I say (X)VCD if ur player can handle it. Like everyone else said, can't tell a difference, and hell its faster. Unless u need features, which i dont even bother with, go for svcd. Plus most computers are more compatoble with mpeg-1 rather than mpeg-2. So Im just being lazy

[corrupt]

for me svcd looks very good on a light daytime scene, almost dvd at times. on dark scenes with deep colours it suffers in the same way as vcd, some times worse in my opinion as you have more blocks dancing about from shade to shade.

[kidkurrupt]

It isn't. It's the higher bitrate and picturesize.

Interlacing is what makes MPEG-2 look better than mpeg-1 on the tv. You're thinking of standard SVCD vs VCD if you're referring to higher bitrate and resolution.

[Vejita-sama]

At the same bitrate and resolution MPEG1 and MPEG2 look the same, period. Now MPEG1 does not support interlaced source so that can be a huge problem.

xVCD and xSVCD, just mean non-standard. They are not better than VCD or SVCD, just non-standard. For example:

VCD MPEG1 352x240 video=1150kbit/s audio=224kbit/s
xVCD MPEG1 325x240 video=1150kbit/s audio=128kbit/s

note the different audio bitrates, that's a non-standard audio bitrate and thus an xVCD.

I think the part that confuses people is that the SVCD standard:
MPEG2 480x480 video=2520kbits/s & audio=224kbit/s is at the max for most stand alones. But an xVCD at 480x480 video=2520kbit/s & audio=224kbit/s will look the same (unless you've got an interlaced source). So since you can enocde MPEG1 faster than MPEG2 and more players (and all PCs) support xVCD than xSVCD/SVCD I say go xVCD.

Also remember GIGO, if you take a 320x240 DivX file -> 480x480 MPEG it's going to look like crap

[kidkurrupt]

At the same bitrate and resolution MPEG1 and MPEG2 look the same, period. Now MPEG1 does not support interlaced source so that can be a huge problem.

It does not only mean a huge problem, it can also mean mpeg2 looking better than mpeg1 on the television.

[technogeek]

I conveted an original 2 min movie (HomeAlone2) - format was Pal VCD 352*288 - 25fps >>to >>SVCD format - PAL 480*576.

I used TMPGencoder 2.02 which i dloaded a few days back.
I use win 98 se, 64 mb RAM, Intel 440 EX board with PII - 300 MHZ processor,40 GB hdd. HP CD writer 8230e USB, NEro BurningROM 5.5.6.4

THe conversion went on fine but I could not make out much difference in the original VCD dat file and the converted SVCD fomat MPEG on my PC. Will the difference be noticeable in a TV with DVD playback capability ?

Shoud original MPEG 1 VCD dat files copied directly form VCDs be converted into VCD or SVCD fomat (after conversion).-espiecally after no noticeable difference.

Also in TMpeg > click on setting (for custom MPEG options)>>click on advanced tab>> after video arrange method there are many options like filter, sharepn, etc. Can someone please explain me the techical part and how to use this stuff ?

please post the reply or mail at ankush24@rediffmail.com