DVD to Divx/XviD for a 40" HDTV. What resolution?

[marioval]

When encoding a DVD to a 2GB divx/xvid file to watch on a 40" 1080p HDTV on my DVP5990, should I leave the resolution at 720x480 or should I go with something lower? I'm using Fairuse Wizard Free 2.8 to make my avi file. I know that question may be vauge so if any more info is needed please ask away. Thanks.

[jagabo]

When encoding a DVD to a 2GB divx/xvid file to watch on a 40" 1080p HDTV on my DVP5990, should I leave the resolution at 720x480

I do -- and of course I set the PAR/DAR flags so it plays with the right aspect ratio (the 5990 respects them). I use Target Quantizer encoding and let the file come out whatever size it needs.

[marioval]

Thanks for the info jagabo... I was under the impression that the 5990 would not read avi files larger than 2GB whether from a fat32 usb drive or on a DVDr. Is that not the case?

[jagabo]

It can play up to 4GB -- but I think it takes a long time to open the file when they are over 2 GB. I usually encode at Target Quantizer 3. Movies rarely go over 2 GB at that setting. If a long movie does go over 2 GB I'll split it into two files.

[marioval]

Thanks

[PuzZLeR]

I too would keep the exact same resolution - increasing it and bloating the file size won't help much for any TV, and decreasing is best left for smaller screens or mobiles.

However, do be careful of the pixel aspect ratio - if your player does not support anamorphic AVI then it will come out distorted at 720x480. If that is the case, you'd need to use square pixels and settle with something like 640x480 for 4:3 and 640x352 for 16:9 (the latter is mathematically valid at 640x360, but 360 is not divisible by 16 and could be problematic).

I don't have a 5990 so I can't tell you - test first before doing any massive encoding.

And yes, target quantizer encoding, is the way to go. Bitrate encoding is a thing of the past, only useful today if an exact file size is absolutely necessary, such at to fit a certain amount on a certain space.

[marioval]

I'm kind of a noob but I think I know what you are talking about in regards to the anamorphic avi. I'm pretty sure the 5990 does support this. I have some widescreen movies that when I play on my PC it just shows the movie with no black bars but when I play them on the 5990 it is still widescreen but adds black bars to the top and bottom. Is this what you are referring to?

As far as bitrate encoding, I was under the impression that I had a 2Gb file size limit. Now that I know that is not the case I am going to try Target Quantizer. Thanks everyone.

[jagabo]

The 5990 does support PAR/DAR flags. I have one. 16:9 720x480 or 720x576 Xvid encodes with the PAR/DAR flags set properly will fill a 16:9 HDTV. 4:3 videos will be pillarboxed, as expected.

[PuzZLeR]

Alas, I hate to be a party pooper. Although this is good news for 5990 owners, if you wish to distribute this content you may have problems. Alot of players suffer from the "AVI Square Pixel Assumption" and will distort it (but will still play it).

Keep in mind, this is not a problem with AVI, or even DivX, Xvid. It's just that these players don't have a very good decoder that respects the fuller abilities of AVI, or rather, the reformed ODML AVI. They will just assume square pixels and bypass any PAR flag that may exist.

It's too bad, because I love anamorphic encodes over their square pixel counterparts.

[JoeBolden]

I appreciate the info for future reference.

Generally what are the reasons to convert DVD to a 2GB divx/xvid file to watch on a 40" 1080p HDTV on a DVP5990, I am new to this after many years of basic DVDFAB and/or DVD Shrink DVD(9 or 5) to DVD(9 or 5) or ConvertXtoDVD when source was Divx/XviD. Lately if my source is DVD9 for any good movies then copy to DVD9 is my first choice.

If you start with 700 to 1400 MB Divx/XviD files you can put 3 to 6 movies on 1 DVD or use a USB flash drive without converting to DVD. You can rip 3 to 6 movies to Divx/XviD source start with to burn on 1 DVD to put a few movies on 1 DVD

Assume you start with the original DVD or copy. With DVD5 blanks at about $0.20 on sale wouldn't it be better just to copy the DVD to save indexing etc resulting from converting to a 2GB file. Not mentioned here was if the source DVD was single or DL DVD9 may need to convert to 2 GB for quality then conversion would result some savings with verbatim DL on sale for under $1 each the cost difference is about 4 to 1 and not 7/8 to 1 like a year or two ago. Savings would about double 7/8 to 1 if putting 2 Divx/XviD 2GB files on 1 DVD5 If using flash USB converting a DVD5 to Divx/XviD just to watch on TV a DVD-RW would be easier if your not viewing it later.

If you have Divx/XviD's files as your source to begin with then as I understand it converting to DVD will not increase the quality if you have Divx/XviD compliant player.

I recently bought a similar Philips DVP5982 (because of NTSC/PAL, used on eBay delivered for $36). When they were already Divx/XviD files it's nice to burn 3 to 6 to 1 DVD with formating to multiple DVDs. They played nicely on my standard old 27" non HD TV. I am hoping to get a 40" HDTV before xmas. I USB for Divx/XviD files to see if good enough for TV before burning if adding to collection

What would be the difference in quality playing a DVD converted to 2GB Divx/XviD file on a 40" HDTV (720p or 1080p) rather than a DVD using upscaling (don't know much about it)?

Please fell free to correct and or enlighten me.

Thank you, Joey

[marioval]

@JoeBolden

You question is elaborate but my answer is simple. I am am making backups of my DVD to have as a last resort. I watch the actual DVD when I want to watch a movie but if that DVD ever gets damaged or lost I still have the backed up copy as a last resort. I encode to 2GB so I can fit 2 movies per disc. I know discs are cheap these days but considering that I may never even have to use these backups, it just makes more sense to me to do 2 movies per disk instead of 1 per. It may not be the best logic but its my logic and i'm sticking to it.

[PuzZLeR]

Yes indeed, to each his/her own.

Maybe DvD blanks are inexpensive but having half as many stacked on your shelf is also nice.

But the smaller file size also helps tremendously if using a hard drive for playback, or a media box, particularly for management of content within the lesser space. Even though BD blanks are getting cheaper, the more-on-the-same space concept is also useful if using these as playback discs for a DivX Certified BD player.

Everybody has different tastes regarding "backups", but in my preference there is a distinction : if it's an archival backup then I prefer a 1:1 copy, but for a viewing backup, the smaller I can get away with, the better.

This doesn't apply to personal edited productions - this is varied.

[JoeBolden]

Thank you marioval & PuzZLeR Agreed "Yes indeed, to each his/her own." "less space" "may never need backup" and etc. are great reasons to encode. Archival backup is a good reason not to encode. Some may currently have an older PC like P4 2.4 WinXP for them a 1 to 1 rip, copy and burn may take considerably less time than a quality 2 pass conversion so that choice may be appropriate for them.

Have read many times a proper quality format conversion DVD to Divx/XviDwill will usually result in near DVD quaily for playing on NON HDTV's. Does this hold true for DVD to Divx/XviD for a 40" HDTV? I have avoided DVD9 to DVD5 compression to under 70% as artifacts can become more noticeable especially on large screens and under 60% could result in frame freezing etc.

Thank you again for helping to clarify. Joey

[jagabo]

Have read many times a proper quality format conversion DVD to Divx/XviDwill will usually result in near DVD quaily for playing on NON HDTV's. Does this hold true for DVD to Divx/XviD for a 40" HDTV?

In my opinion a good Xvid encode as nearly as good as the original DVD on a big screen TV. Where you're most likely to see problems is in dark shots, fog or smoke -- places where there are smooth gradients and lots of minor motion. You will sometimes see posterization artifacts.

I usually use x264 (h.264, AVC, MPEG 4 part 10) encoding these days. It does better than Xvid/Divx at high compression ratios.

[PuzZLeR]

At high bitrates, I don't notice that much of a difference with x264 over DivX/Xvid, but yes, the compression advantage of x264 does get more and more apparent at decreasing bitrates - and is more noticeable on a bigger screen. Depends how low you wish to go.

Anyway, just to note, I say that when using any high compression format like x264, Xvid, DivX, and even MPEG-2, etc, you should be using constant quality. I no longer care to match bitrate with quality - I let the encoder do it for me, accept the resulting bitrate it yields, and it simplifies my life. I even let it tell me how much I can put on a disc at a certain quality now as well (instead of the old days).

Keep in mind, some (more novice) users will say that constant quality bloats the file. Even though you do relinquish control of the bitrate, the constant quality encode will give you the minimum bitrate for the quality you ask of it. This is not bloating.

So I could care less if the resulting file ends up over, or under, 2GB. This feature is also very useful with many smaller videos, like music videos for example - I get similar quality for all this way, regardless of how many I can fit on a disc.

IMO any encoder without a good constant quality scheme is useless.