ConvertXtoDVD creators full of s..t

[mammo1789]

I mean this is contrary to all that we know about bit-rate and video files ( at least i do )

http://forums.vso-software.fr/ill-never-understand-this-program-t14221.html

http://forums.vso-software.fr/answers-to-most-of-your-conversion-questions-t11326.html

I don't understand that 2,5gb of dvd5 disk space with 1500 kb/s can give better results than 4.3 gb of 3000 kb/s according to programmers that is all needed for good quality and the program knows best .

I usually don't use this kind of one size fit all programs i use good encoders and authoring programs tmpgenc ones sony adobe and such, but i was lazy this night ( and i wanted to watch some movies fast on my dvd recorder that doesn't reads DivX ).

So am I stupid or what, or these guys are considering as as monkeys, what's the flick here

[mail2tom]

I've read the same thing, but if you want to fill the DVD, or nearly fill it, go to the "Encoding" tab and change the "Encoding options" to "SP (Short projects --> Up to 80 min.)" and check the "Two-pass encoding" box.

[mammo1789]

Yes thanks mail2tom i was posting long answers on their site forum about this problem and the moderator stubbornnessly tried to convince me ( and a lot other smart guys ) that the program knows best .

The encoded videos ( i tickle the devil never done it regularly before i was in a hurry and wanted to watch the 2 movies on one dvd5 video about 4 hours long ) so i could watch it on my dvd recorder. I know everything and that it is better to leave the original codec so to don't use conversation but i needed the pc for something else, and i thought that cxtd will do the fast job as it did, and quite good but i was wrong and the moderator and their stupid idea about cq being superior and that size doesn't matter ?! and that 2,5 gb for 4 hours movie ( i used half d1 resolution by the way ) to 4,3 gb is the same to them i don't have the nerves to explain to them and make some serious compassion my pc is working some project.
Dvd flick by the way doesn't have that "problem" at all

[cowboyup910]

You didn't read it carefully over there either. But like poster in position 2 said you can force it to fill the DVD if that's your goal. And I'm not any of those guys who even replied in your topic that was locked. I miss all the fun.

I will entertain you and say yes in simple scenes sometimes the CX2D doesn't do the greatest with its CQ method. Take for example a movie like Vanishing on 7th Street its very simple dark scenes and some of the spots of the movie look choppy when you use CX2D CQ. The encoder doesn't have to work hard so it doesn't and you get a fair picture. (Not GREAT) In this case I'd forced the encoder to use a HyBrid CQ or more like VBR by selecting SP 2 pass. This should force more bitrate although CQ believes it doesn't need it.

This is why they say use AUTO for "most projects" but the more complex scenes if you force VBR you lose quality on the harder more complex scenes because your giving it up to the simple scenes.

Does that make better sense.

[mammo1789]

If I insulted you I'm sorry that was not my intention, and it is not my way of communicating I was just pointing to the post over here on the mater, and the point that I was making over there is that the program is not flexible as used by someone that knows better then click and point, and that "automatic" never means better, because the "machine" has some flaws, and can be tricked by something very simple that human can actually see and correct manually. Another very important thing is that when ever there is "compromise" (the origin which means by the way lets meet on the middle, you take something off i take something off and it will never be as good as i take all or you take all approach for you and me there will be always some lost in the process in the non ideal world, or because on the Earth we don't have unlimited resources we will have to make some compromise in the process no mater in what kind of "job").

In video/audio the compression of any material ( in this example this is lossy by the way ) is made to make some compromise because of the non unlimited space that is available. In ideal world we will get the best picture and sound quality by uncompressed audio and video, and we will have players that will play those files, and transfer it to the tv uncompressed ( HDMI maybe for example ). But because the storage space ( no mater how big ) is limited, and the resources of the pc no mater how strong are also limited we get compromise ( that is way visually or almost there but not quite, and we have to take something off so it will "fit").

In approach where something is "lost" in the process, the size and bit rate for that mater is very very important ( because you lose less and that is your goal ), because if with more "points" something is represented the better.

Now the point of CQ is to remain quality "no mater what" ( that is to give even more on the complex scenes and less on the non ones so it gives quality where it maters the most).
Ok that is ok from the theoretical point of view and quite logical, but it has some flaws ( like anything as I sad before ) in terms of to recognize which scene is complex and which scene is not and as you sad it can be easily tricked by some simply complex scene ( dark with static background but alot of movement partially on the screen and i have seen that on number of movies with CQ and number of programs for example on national local movie ( in my country ) night scene where there is city from far and just helicopter that is shuting at boat where terrorist are down ),It seems simple scene but it is not and it looks bad macroblced and mushy ( because of lack of bit rate logically) and the scene is 3 min long ( hard terrorists probably .

But if we consider the above the "real" complex scene should get more bitrate and analogy better quality, here is where Convert X to DVD toilets completely. In normal way it should have given ( let assume maximum available bit rate) and together with the normal scenes and given the logic that it doesent give that much prediction about the size should have ( given the duration and complexity of movie and quality of the source) let say 6-7 gb,Why? because it will preserve the quality better and use all the available bit rate where is needed.

But CXTD compresses it to 2,2 gb really? smart? it doesn't need more wasted space ? the result mushy and pixelated macroblocked movie which looks far far better on the competition ( who tells me? my eyes as the author says the ultimate judge and the sample posted ).

This is why they say use AUTO for "most projects" but the more complex scenes if you force VBR you lose quality on the harder more complex scenes because your giving it up to the simple scenes.

Why ? not true you will not "loose" on any scene ( it will give on both more ) but loose more space on the dvd ( fill it) which is good thing ( if program done this correctly which is not doing in the first place)

And instead of "fixing the problem " because it seems didn't existed in the previous versions ( which also used CQ) he bashes the costumers and that is what I argued.

Finally the CXTD suffers from over lowering bitrate ( everywhere ) and that's way even good quality (6-8 gb ) mkv's when trans coded for the DVD by CXTD gives mediocre results.

And finally given the speed ( it is very fast by the way) and faulty automatic setting, and the genre of CQ encoding for particular scenarios , quality suffers and saying that quality is our main concern ( authors words ) is misleading the costumers ( at least in Europe )