ConvertXTtoDVD won't fill a DVD-5

[Somebla]

Hey,

First time using ConvertXTtoDVD and I'm trying to convert a mkv to a DVD-5.
I set the target size to DVD-5 (4.3GB) but the final result was 2.3GB. I then tried to manulley set the target size to 4.3GB but got the same result..

Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?

[guns1inger]

ConvertXtoDVD tries to do a fairly aggressive quality based single pass encode. Even with 2-pass encoding enabled in version 4, undersized output is often the case. Part of the reason for this approach is that ConvertXtoDVD was really designed for encoding 700Mb Xvid encoded, over-compressed AVI files into DVDs, and with such low quality source, the extra bitrate wasn't necessary. It also meant that you could put 3 hours on a disc with ConvertXtoDVD fairly comfortably. It may not be the best encoder around, but it is pretty reliable and handles most formats. That said, I find version 4 to be much more likely to undersize the output than version 3 was, with no real quality improvements coming inthe upgrade.

Personally, I use AVStoDVD as my primary conversion tool. It takes a bit longer, but it uses HCEnc for encoding, and does a damn fine job. On the odd occasion that AVStoDVD has choked on a file, or if I need something converted very quickly and quality is not the main object, ConvertXtoDVD is my fallback.

Are you doing anything wrong ? Probably not. If you have chosen 4.3 as your target and quality is set to high, there is little else you can do. Like most one-click-wonders, ConvertXtoDVD hides most of the detailed settings away from the user. It keeps it simple, but also gives you no control at all over the output beyond a vague, nebulous quality setting.

So if you want speed and simplicity, stick with ConvertXtoDVD. It is arguably the best in it's field (payware one-click AVI to DVD conversion tools). If you want to try something else, give AVStoDVD a go. Compare the encoding time (up to twice as long depending on the settings used) and the quality. If the quality is higher and the time is not an issue (or at least worth the extra quality), use that as your primary tool and keep ConvertXtoDVD as your backup.

[leghorn]

There's an option to set the project length: auto, short, medium, long. Afaik, always use -short- to fill a DVD5.

[Somebla]

I tried out AVStoDVD and it worked great!

Thanks to the both of you

[Seeker47]

ConvertXtoDVD tries to do a fairly aggressive quality based single pass encode. Even with 2-pass encoding enabled in version 4, undersized output is often the case. Part of the reason for this approach is that ConvertXtoDVD was really designed for encoding 700Mb Xvid encoded, over-compressed AVI files into DVDs, and with such low quality source, the extra bitrate wasn't necessary. It also meant that you could put 3 hours on a disc with ConvertXtoDVD fairly comfortably. It may not be the best encoder around, but it is pretty reliable and handles most formats. That said, I find version 4 to be much more likely to undersize the output than version 3 was, with no real quality improvements coming inthe upgrade.

Personally, I use AVStoDVD as my primary conversion tool. It takes a bit longer, but it uses HCEnc for encoding, and does a damn fine job. On the odd occasion that AVStoDVD has choked on a file, or if I need something converted very quickly and quality is not the main object, ConvertXtoDVD is my fallback.

Are you doing anything wrong ? Probably not. If you have chosen 4.3 as your target and quality is set to high, there is little else you can do. Like most one-click-wonders, ConvertXtoDVD hides most of the detailed settings away from the user. It keeps it simple, but also gives you no control at all over the output beyond a vague, nebulous quality setting.

So if you want speed and simplicity, stick with ConvertXtoDVD. It is arguably the best in it's field (payware one-click AVI to DVD conversion tools). If you want to try something else, give AVStoDVD a go. Compare the encoding time (up to twice as long depending on the settings used) and the quality. If the quality is higher and the time is not an issue (or at least worth the extra quality), use that as your primary tool and keep ConvertXtoDVD as your backup.

I'm a registered user of CX2D. Your reply above seems to fill in certain "blanks" on this subject. Since you are so familiar with both programs, and since the responses I've gotten on the VSO forums have not always been that useful, I thought I might ask you about a few things. Hopefully they are still sufficiently on-topic with this thread.

I have long been mystified that various V4 versions of CX2D lock up stone cold dead while converting as much as 50 % of the clips I try to use them on, but, almost in every case, I can then immediately turn around and process those same clips successfully with the V3 of CX2D that I still have installed. This tells me that it can't be hardware, overheating, or something like that. I have generic settings in V4, because I saw early-on that enabling 2-pass, or other filters like Lanczos, dramatically increased the failure rate for me. Usually the lockups happened early in the V4 conversion process, and I did not find anything revealing in the Engine or program Crash logs. The VSO forum traffic has much discussion of V4 bugs, and "regressions" connected with unresolved issues in the V4 code base through several version updates. Perhaps a major overhaul of that code base is overdue.

In view of this frustrating experience with V4, I've insisted on keeping my working-well V3 installed. V3 and V4 seem to have coexisted o.k. for quite awhile now on this system, but maybe that is illusory ? (Curiously, I don't think I have run into any V4 failures with .MKV files, having done many of those that were around 1.1 to 1.5G in size. These all had Matroska B headers inside, but maybe this is just a coincidence ?) In regard to further updating V4, there is often advice to use their VSO cleaning tool in the course of doing so. I've been reluctant, out of concern about possibly damaging some V3 components in the process. Would you happen to know if that concern is unfounded ?

AVStoDVD has been on my "Try It" list for awhile. I actually had it briefly installed on a different computer, but one that was underpowered for it, and I found the program a bit more complicated than I wanted to deal with at that time. In a thread here, the AVStoDVD author once replied to me expressing confidence that his program should be able to coexist on the same computer alongside CX2D, without any clashing between them.

Incidentally, I think a lot of users (myself included) have had an opposite experience to the OP with CX2D: so long as the number and size or runtime of clips, or type (e.g., high-resolution) were not leaning to either extreme, the program seemed to usually fill or nearly fill a DVD-5. I've done so many with a 75 - 95 minute total running time (usually only some of that higher-res material), and it fills the DVD-5 quite reliably. Rarely less than 4.3G worth. Project setting would be whatever retained the CX2D "best quality" estimation. It did seem that V4 could cram in more material under those same parameters, however.

[cowboyup910]

You should be concern about quality not filling a disc simply to fill it. If you follow these simple rules for most theatrical releases this will ensure a good quality output.

1. Use the High setting for projects less than 80 minutes long.
2. Use the Medium setting for those between 80 and 160 minutes long.
3. Use the Low setting for those over 160 minutes long.

Also change the default resize filter to Lanczos, most users seem to get good results.

The common mistake is to believe that BIGGER SIZE / BITRATE will produce bigger quality. THIS IS NOT TRUE IN ANY CASE.

ConvertXtoDVD uses an encoding method called CQ, contant quantization factor encode. Most users are familiar with constant bitrate (CBR) encodes and traditional variable bitrate (VBR) encodes. With a CQ encode size is not proof of quality. Only your eyes can tell you if the result is respectable or not. In other words ConvertXtoDVD is a quality based encoder which make an economic use of the bitrate with a very simple principle: when it's not needed to use higher bitrate, convertx will not use it.

For the hard headed I might as well make this easier for you and tell you now, that setting "Short projects" as your encoding option your output size will be bigger than with the other options listed, however---this does not mean your result will be any better at all, in fact it maybe worse. Once again, size is not proof of quality in the case of ConvertXtoDVD a better use of bitrate might have been done by using a different encoding option.

[guns1inger]

Unfortunately that is only partly true, and partly to cover VSO's butt. ConvertXtoDVD 4 produces undersized video at demonstrably lower quality than AVStoDVD, and even, in many cases, ConvertXtoDVD 3. CQ really only works well when size is not an issue, and an appropriate quality factor is used. I have no faith that ConvertXtoDVD 4 do this sufficiently well. It's output so far has been less than impressive.

[jman98]

Seeker47 - Does your PC that locks up have an AMD CPU? I love AMD, I really do, but as I have used them a lot it does seem to me that they are more prone to locking than Intel CPUs are. I have sometimes had success with the following. If I have a program that keeps locking up, after you start it do Ctrl-Alt-Del and look at the TaskManager under Processes for your program. Once you find it, right click on it and select "Set Priority" and try changing it to Realtime. Basically that prevents your PC from doing almost anything except that program until it finishes, but I have been able to get some programs that lock the CPU to complete after doing that. Not always, but sometimes it works.

[t0nee1]

For those quick and not-so-good-flick, conversions ( think Gigli),ConvertXtoDVD works just fine..anything else I prefer AVStoDVD.
JM2c..

[Seeker47]

Seeker47 - Does your PC that locks up have an AMD CPU? I love AMD, I really do, but as I have used them a lot it does seem to me that they are more prone to locking than Intel CPUs are. I have sometimes had success with the following. If I have a program that keeps locking up, after you start it do Ctrl-Alt-Del and look at the TaskManager under Processes for your program. Once you find it, right click on it and select "Set Priority" and try changing it to Realtime. Basically that prevents your PC from doing almost anything except that program until it finishes, but I have been able to get some programs that lock the CPU to complete after doing that. Not always, but sometimes it works.

Yes, this computer happens to be a a dual-core AMD. Athlon 64 X2 6400+ with 3G. of Ram, to be precise. I will give your suggestion a try, but this begs the question of how the lockup occurs only rarely with v.3 of CX2D, yet often with v. 4 -- and more commonly with certain file types. I can't go with Lanczos, as cowboyup910 suggests, since that is usually a fatal setting re the situation I've mentioned. Ditto for 2-pass.

And I'd still welcome some answers on the questions I raised, like whether it would be safe for me to use the VSO removal tool.

[Pretty Random]

Hey,

First time using ConvertXTtoDVD and I'm trying to convert a mkv to a DVD-5.
I set the target size to DVD-5 (4.3GB) but the final result was 2.3GB. I then tried to manulley set the target size to 4.3GB but got the same result..

Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?

I had a similar problem. I had two, 60 minute HD MKVs to burn to a DVD-5. I let ConvertX automatically choose it's Encoding Options, which would have been for a Medium project of between 80 & 160 minutes.

The end result was 2.5GB in size, half the disc wasted & a noticeably mediocre picture.

As an experiment, I tried again but this time I manually set the Encoding Options to SP > Up to 80 minutes even though the project was 120 minutes.

Hey Presto! The end result was 4GB and the picture was superb & very little space wasted.

So the SP > Up to 80 minutes Encoding Option will do a two hour movie with a little room to spare.

[Bonie81]

I'm a registered user of CX2D. ...

Incidentally, I think a lot of users (myself included) have had an opposite experience to the OP with CX2D: so long as the number and size or runtime of clips, or type (e.g., high-resolution) were not leaning to either extreme, the program seemed to usually fill or nearly fill a DVD-5. I've done so many with a 75 - 95 minute total running time (usually only some of that higher-res material), and it fills the DVD-5 quite reliably. Rarely less than 4.3G worth. Project setting would be whatever retained the CX2D "best quality" estimation. It did seem that V4 could cram in more material under those same parameters, however.

Agreed....
CX2D final size depends on source quality and runtime. I was quite close to fill-up 4.7 GB for 120 min run-time.
Project setting would be whatever retained the CX2D "best quality" estimation, CX2D is aggressive on quality.
For low run-time it shoots video bitrates fairly high enough.

There is no match for CX2D on this planet. its really awesome coz
1) It's robust - Seldom crashes or Hang-Over.
2) 99.99% success rate to convert all most all avi, mpg, vob, mkv, mp4 and flv (you name it) to DVD-SD.
3) pretty simple like 1-2-and-3.

[cowboyup910]

@ Pretty Random

Unfortunately, then your not using the program as it was intended.

You basically forced the program to use a tradition method of encoding, more like Variable Bit Rate, which is why it fills the disc.

[Seeker47]

I'm a registered user of CX2D. ...

Incidentally, I think a lot of users (myself included) have had an opposite experience to the OP with CX2D: so long as the number and size or runtime of clips, or type (e.g., high-resolution) were not leaning to either extreme, the program seemed to usually fill or nearly fill a DVD-5. I've done so many with a 75 - 95 minute total running time (usually only some of that higher-res material), and it fills the DVD-5 quite reliably. Rarely less than 4.3G worth. Project setting would be whatever retained the CX2D "best quality" estimation. It did seem that V4 could cram in more material under those same parameters, however.

Agreed....
CX2D final size depends on source quality and runtime. I was quite close to fill-up 4.7 GB for 120 min run-time.
Project setting would be whatever retained the CX2D "best quality" estimation, CX2D is aggressive on quality.
For low run-time it shoots video bitrates fairly high enough.

There is no match for CX2D on this planet. its really awesome coz
1) It's robust - Seldom crashes or Hang-Over.
2) 99.99% success rate to convert all most all avi, mpg, vob, mkv, mp4 and flv (you name it) to DVD-SD.
3) pretty simple like 1-2-and-3.

This must be a pretty old comment of mine. Since then, I've found plenty of evidence to support Moontrash's and Poppa Meth's reviews in the Tools section, regarding the CX2D encoder-algorithm's shortcomings and the under-filling shortfall with many DVD-5s. (Even if I did have more than a little luck in working around it with program settings and videos selection. btw, this could apply to a DVD-9, as well.)

I would place the success rate at more like 65%. Better for me with v. 3.x, and quite a bit worse with v. 4.x -- although plenty of bomb-outs with either, from assorted errors. It was highly dependent on the video, and the video file format. Sometimes running a video through a fixer (such as Womble, for .MPG) would help, and sometimes not.

While CX2D is unparalleled for ease of use, I have long since switched over to AVStoDVD for the vast majority of DVDs that I make this way. It is superior in almost every respect, does not have the under-fill problem, and the program's failure rate has been negligible. Even a lot of "problem" videos seem to have been tolerated fairly well, where CX2D did or would have choked on them. (The AVS version I have mainly used was 2.33, and, given my experience with all the bugs and constant regressions of CX2D versions, I would not want to over-generalize to other AVS versions that I have not used . . . although I see no reports of similar inconsistencies there.)

[mrswla]

I encode to dvd-9, and if it ends up over 4.7 then I use dvdshrink to fit it perfectly to a dvd-5.

[Seeker47]

I encode to dvd-9, and if it ends up over 4.7 then I use dvdshrink to fit it perfectly to a dvd-5.

Well . . . that's another workaround. Better if you can get it the way you wanted it the first time.
I think the PQ is generally quite a bit better with AVStoDVD, in any case.

Each probably lacks a few convenience features that can be found in the other. (Can you hard code subs with CX2D, if you wanted to ? That option is there in AVS.)

[cowboyup910]

I am stuck at how people seem to believe under-filling a DVD is the problem.

Once one can understand a constant quantization method for encoding they you would realize its goal is to maintain the highest quality without filling the DVD.

CQ maintains the same quantization factor (Q) for all scenes and, since Q can be taken as a measure of quality, it assigns bitrate as needed to each scene to keep the same quality for all scenes regardless of complexity. The result can be a bitrate distribution over time that swings up and down much more than with VBR in order to keep quality the same for all scenes.

Converted size with CQ encodes is unpredictable before conversion since average scene complexity is not known, and Q is an integer so converted size jumps in steps as Q varies. The result is that DVDs will typically not be exactly filled as with other encoding methods that control bitrate. So do not expect many of your conversions with CX2D to completely fill a DVD.

Encoder Comparison for 120 Minute Project




If CX2D ever chocked, it wasn't because of the program itself. Many users complain because their crappy sources fail when trying to convert a file. I've seen log after log of people having issues and I can happy say if your going to download stuff from the internet use a good releaser.

[mrswla]

Is AVStoDVD able to except m2ts files? That's really the only reason I use cx2d. I can copy my blu rays to dvd for the kids room. If it does, I'll try it out.

Can you hard code subs with CX2D, if you wanted to

What does hard code subs mean? Does that mean it will display the subs on the video and not be user selectable?

[zerocoool]

to help you outr i use the dvd9 option not the dvd 5 option then i use clone dvd to make an iso file

[cowboyup910]

This thread is not helpful at all. Users are not interesting in anything except filling the DVD.

Quality, results those are not important. An understand of why the disc is not fill is irrevelant, I want simply want my DVD.. Period!

CX2D can make an ISO.

[Bonie81]

@mrswla

I encode to dvd-9, and if it ends up over 4.7 then I use dvdshrink to fit it perfectly to a dvd-5.

updates 5th Jun 2011 at 17:13.
Confirmed. This method produces stunning quality. I have tried to convert HD videos to DVD, and very happy with final DVD quality.
Thanks to mrswla.

i guess this is the best method to get highest possible quality out-of CX2D, is to set CX2D for DVD-9 and re-compress to DVD-5 with DVDShrink. I gonna try soon.

i hv no bias for AVStoDVD which the best FREE tool uses HCEnc or QuEnc as back-bone, and more precise in output target size and . AVStoDVD also produces very good quality DVDs. The only matter to me it sometimes crashes or chokes while running under WINE which in-turn waste of encoding time. Under windows it goes smooth.

[cowboyup910]

Nope, if you want the best output leave on automatic and allow the encoder to work properly to produce the best result. Don't be overly obsessed with output size but rather output quality.

[mrswla]

Nope, if you want the best output leave on automatic and allow the encoder to work properly to produce the best result. Don't be overly obsessed with output size but rather output quality.

I think you are confusing two different settings. There is encoding and target size. Yes, encoding should probably be left on automatic. But, target size should be set to dvd-9 so that less compression is used. IF, and most the time it doesn't, the output is over 4.35 (sl disk) then you can use dvdshrink to compress just enough to fit perfectly onto a sl disc.

[mrswla]

Sorry forgot to upload with last post.

[cowboyup910]

Not at all.

Your changing the output to DVD9 just so that your output size is closer to filling a DVD5. Thus will output a size just larger the DVD5 standards, which is why you have to use DVDShrink to resize down.

Right there is the issue. This will not give you superior quality, if anything just a larger output.

Again

The common mistake is to believe that BIGGER SIZE / BITRATE will produce bigger quality. THIS IS NOT TRUE IN ANY CASE.

To get the best output for most all theatrical titles, set the encoder to auto and DVD5, this will not fill the disc but give you overall the best quality possible.

Here's a short reading on the differences between the encoding methods: http://tangentsoft.net/video/mpeg/enc-modes.html

CQ method will not fill the DVD, once you more past this and come to the realization, all will make sense. CX2D is rare, not common so of course there is confusion. You can change or alter your results if your not interesting in using the program as design.

One way is your way above, or another is to change the encoder to short project. This will force VBR and your DVD will be filled.

[mrswla]

Your changing the output to DVD9 just so that your output size is closer to filling a DVD5.

No, I'm changing the output to dvd9 because my eyes tell me the resulting picture on my tv looks better then when outputed to dvd5.

I've done it both ways. Leaving it on dvd5 creates too many compression artifacts for my liking.

[Noahtuck]

When you are going from a 40gb bluray rip to a single layer dvdr, yeah, it should fill up more than 2gb of a SL dvdr, even VSO Blu-ray Converter Ultimate only uses up half the disc from a full bluray rip

And i also have thought of doing what mrswla said, except with DVD Rebuilder, but i'd rather use something else that encodes it to a higher bitrate and correct size the first time for the best quality.

Maybe if you are going from a lower quality/size file it's not a bad thing to only fill up half the dvdr but when going from a far superior and larger video, crushing it down to a tenth of the size aint gonna cut it......

[cowboyup910]

Believe me I understand what many are thinking, which is why I don't even convert BluRay files to DVD, its just not going give you great quality anyhow. BluRay is meant for BluRay and converting them to DVD and DVD resolutions is just silly, which is I why I have a mini-PC connected to my TV or one can use one of those WD TV players for BluRay.


But for the regular AVI files CX2D will do a great job and will produce what it can given what you inputted.

[Noahtuck]

Believe me I understand what many are thinking, which is why I don't even convert BluRay files to DVD, its just not going give you great quality anyhow.

Ummm... wrong....

BluRay is meant for BluRay and converting them to DVD and DVD resolutions is just silly

I don't have a bluray player in my bedroom and none of my kids have one so i have been converting quite a few bluray's to dvdr's and the dvdr conversions blow away the original pressed dvd's of the same title.
And not everyone has an HDTV in every room of their homes.

Here is a screen shot of an original pressed dvd of The Gauntlet,


Here is a screen shot of the same movie after it was converted to DVDR from my bluray rip,


Might not be as easy to see on a screencap but it is way less grainy, better colors, etc.
Not to mention way better remastered audio that sounds a 100 times better on a 5.1 system....

And that is just one of about 50 examples i could give.

But for the regular AVI files CX2D will do a great job and will produce what it can given what you inputted.

And yes, i agree, convertxtodvd is great for when you want to put a bunch of 20 minute Xvid tv episodes onto dvd, but not for larger higher quality video files.

[cowboyup910]

What's the point your making? If you have a BluRay rip and had to convert to DVD the quality is better than if you had a standard def file (avi) to DVD?

I don't dispute that, your using a better source and therefore you got a better image. If I had to burn a file to DVD and I was given the option of using a BluRay rip or a standard def rip, I would use the BluRay rip of course.

The point I'm making is if we take the BluRay rip file and had to convert to DVD, I would use CX2D on auto set to DVD5, than set to DVD9 and then use DVDShrink and shrink back down.