Why do people make VCDs?

[Agent 0008]

Plain and simple, I don't have a money tree so the option of just running out and buying a new computer with DVD burner is not available - nor is plunking down $300-$500 dollars to upgrade what I have.

if it takes 4 to 5 hours to render 18 minutes on my pentium 2, could you imagine the time it would take to render a DVD!!

[MOVIEGEEK]

Good analogy Mirror_Image
GameShow Host:Alex Trebek is a gameshow host here in the U.S.

[Rich927]

"Whereas VCD is "half" resolution, meaning that a VCD image is 1/4 the size of the original image."

Lets see, DV is 500 LOR, SVideo is 400 LOR and VHS is 240 LOR. So , if I capture a VHS signal in MPG-1 at 352X240 and I make a VCD then that would mean the original VHS signal is now 1/4 the size of the original image and "half" resolution would now be 120 LOR.....I don't think so...MPG-1 Whitebook is suppose to be the equlivent of VHS quality. If you do it right, you can make a pretty good VCD. So funny, I remember seeing VCD's of Benny Hill for sale. Can't get more British that that. If DVD's and disks are that cheap in England, then us Yanks here are getting ripped off. Not to be cute or brag, but I can afford to buy a DVD or a Mercedes if I choose. But I don't see the need for either right now. My CD-RW and my 83 Cowboy Cadillac are doing fine. Rather save my money in case my company takes an Enron dive.

[SAFEDISKKILLER22]

if i rent a dvd and wish to copy it without the use of a dvd burner ( i dont have suitcases of money) then why wud i do it onto a VHS tape with lower quality than SVCD and fast degrading and the use of a stripper box from a company that disappears the next day when i can easily make a rip and convert to SVCD with only freeware. i am only 13 and have doone it a long time so dont tell me its hard.

[Craig Tucker]

Gameshow host.
I also live in the uk.
I should imagine that just about 100% of the people on this forum have a CD burner in their pc, and I would estimate that less than 5% of people have a DVD burner. I know no-one with a DVD burner, but everyone I know with a pc has a CD burner.
Which format do you go for DVD-r DVD-rw or DVD+r DVD+rw, as most DVD players will play one or the other but not both. CDr's are about 40 pence whereas recordable DVDs range from £6 to £15 (depending on format).
If you are recording from TV why bother with DVD when VCD or SVCD is of adequate quality, the only plus I can see is extra capacity.
DVD's at the moment can only record single sided single layer (4.7GB) so exact duplicates of most DVD's cannot be made, as most are dual layer.
As I stated before I live in the UK and VCD is a recognised format (at least in my circle of friends and colleagues) although not as an original format but as a format for recording home video or tv shows.
And mirror image does have a point, I would like a merc, but unfortunately I am going to have to stick with my 10 year old ford orion, at least for the foreseeable future.

Craig

[jbusser]

What are we talking about.
1-Indead: DVD recording is not the issue here: Expensive and there's still no good standard.
2-recording your stuff to VCD has a lot of advantiges compared to VHS, it's cheaper, and the quality is comparable to our old video-tapes (sometimes even better), but VCD keeps it's quality!
Working with menues (especialy with home-movies with short chapters) makes fastforwarding unnessacery which is disasterous for VHS-tapes.
Besides these benifits: It's a nice hobby!
My VCR is attached to my PC and NOT to my TV! So I only have my DTS amplifier, a DVD player and a TV in my livingroom (I hate the big stereo's with all kind of media-players!).
Capturing a TV programm/movie using Virt.Dub with timer via my Pinnacle-TV-pro card and burning on a rewritable makes everyting soooo easy.
So, There are a lot of reasons to burn on VCD!

Oh yeah, What's the point of constructing even better digital codecs considering that DVD output is allready overclassing the normal 50 HZ television?

[FlîrtîngWîthDî§a§ter]

Guess we know what mom & dad bought him

[Graham Meredith]

I make VCD's for all the reasons that everyone has already said, and one other really important reason for me - because it will play on something as slow as a P166. Try doing that with MPEG2. Most of my friends aren't into tech stuff, and as their old computers are still serving them well, they have kept them, and as sure as hell none of them have DVD drives. MPG1 will play full screen OK on these computers, so I can share my collection of stuff with my friends, as some of them don't have standalone DVD players but still have old computers.

Graham

[SatStorm]

First of all, sorry for my english. I have to state that everytime I reply to a post which mirror_image had reply also.

- Why do people make VCDs?
Because they are cheap and much compatible.

- What is the future of VCDs?
The future of VCD is limited. It gonna die the day DVD Burners become as cheap as CD burners are today. It gonna be ancient history the day Blue Ray Disc burners gonna replace DVD-burners (in 7 years)...

- So, this period technologically sucks! It is a between...
No. Technology now gonna be for ever that way. Things gonna get even faster.

- What is the use of VCD today?
We don't need DVD for homemedia yet.

- Why we don't need DVD Yet? If i remember well:
VHS is 352 X 288.
SVHS is in theory 352 X 576. In praxis is about 400 vertical lines
Terrestial Broadcasts are about 704 X 576
Digital Video Broadcasts are anything between 352-720 Hor X 576 Ver
DVD-Video is full CCIR-601 (720X576). So, it is logical to say that DVD-Video is the only format capable to hold ALL previus formats with no quality.

You forget something: Mainstream televisions has a very limited resolution. So, you don't have to go beyond 352 X 576.

- That sounds stupid: Why then, there are those resolutions out there?
There were always there. Since 1929, the first television transmision.

- Yes, but there are Videoprojectors out there, HDTV sets, Plasma Sets, etc... You can see those resolutions there

Yes, you can, in theory. But the source today is optimised for maistream TVs. A VCD and a DVD looks horrible on a HDTV. So, whats the point? Creating a DVD to look less horrible that VCD? Horrible is Horrible. Crap is Crap.

- So, What's your opinion:
D2 Resolution is the best choice. D1/CCIR 601 Resolution is the Pro choice.
Creating CVD today is the best maistream solution. CDR today, DVD-R tomorrow. if I go 720 X 576, it gonna looks the same at the 97% of tv sets outhere as 352 X 576. So, no reason to go CCIR - 601 yet.
SVHS resolution/quality is enough for me.
The way I see it, DVD-Rs with CVD files are better than true DVD-R files.

[Gameshow Host]

To everyone who keeps saying that VCD is "VHS quality" or that no quality is lost when transferring from VHS to VCD... I have just checked a few different websites and they all say the same thing: that the vertical resolution of VCD is 240 for NTSC and 288 for PAL. This is exactly one half of the vertical resolution of VHS, which is 480 for NTSC and 576 for PAL. So VCD is nowhere near VHS quality, it has a vertical resolution exactly half the height.

You might say that this is only the vertical resolution, and not the horizontal resolution, but it is the vertical resolution that is more important in making an image appear sharper. On a TV screen, horizontal resolution isn't as important because colours bleed into each other from left to right. This doesn't happen with vertical resolution. A horizontal line on a TV set always remains crisp and sharp and does not "bleed" up or down. So the most important resolution in making an image appear sharper is the vertical one. That's why DVDs only use 720 pixels across and not more, because even though the pixels are wide and fat, we do not notice this on a TV screen, however we would notice tall pixels more.

Although the vertical resolution of VCD is half that of VHS, the horizontal resolution of VHS is already pretty low, so you are not really losing much horizontal resolution when you transfer to VCD. However, just because the resolution is roughly the same does not mean that you are not losing quality. If you convert anything to VCD, even VHS, the image won't be as crisp as it would with DVD, even when it's a VHS you're converting.

If you convert VHS to VCD, you are taking a low resolution analogue signal and digitising it at another low resolution, and because it's a different resolution to the original, the pixels of the original image are not represented accurately and quality is lost. The image will be ever so slightly blurry in the horizontal direction. Whereas DVD has a much larger horizontal resolution than the original VHS, which may seem redundant, but it is useful because it can represent that original picture clearer because it has more pixels to do it with.

The higher the resolution you digitise at, the more accurate a representation you get of the original image because there are more pixels, even if the original image was low resolution. To illustrate this I'll give you an example, imagine if VHS was only 3 pixels wide. On the screen you had the French flag, which is (I think) a white stripe, a red stripe and a green stripe. So the image would be nice and crisp because you would have one column of red pixels, one column of white pixels and one column of green pixels. Now imagine VCD was 5 pixels wide, which would be higher resolution than VHS (so you're not losing resolution). VCD would have to represent the original 3-pixel-wide image of the French flag using 5 pixels, so the end columns of pixels would still be a pure colour, and the middle one would still be a pure colour, but columns 2 and 4 would be blends of two colours, and the image would have lost its crispness. Now, let's say DVD was 10 pixels across, which is way bigger than the original resolution. When DVD represents these three bands of colour, it will still have columns of pixels that are mixtures of two colours, but the edges will be sharper than the VCD image and the original image will have been represented better, because there are more pixels to do it with.

Sorry, that may all have been very boring. Sometimes when I start writing, I can't stop! I hope someone understod it.

[Craig Tucker]

Your original question was why do people use VCD, and for most people the answer is that the cost of burning to DVD is still prohibitive, along with the fact that there is the format issue to consider

Craig

[gNOMEintheRedHat]

__________________________________________________ __________
Gameshow Host Said:

To everyone who keeps saying that VCD is "VHS quality" or that no quality is lost when transferring from VHS to VCD... I have just checked a few different websites and they all say the same thing: that the vertical resolution of VCD is 240 for NTSC and 288 for PAL. This is exactly one half of the vertical resolution of VHS, which is 480 for NTSC and 576 for PAL. So VCD is nowhere near VHS quality, it has a vertical resolution exactly half the height.
__________________________________________________ __________

NTSC broadcast = 525 lines of resolution (not all are used for image)
Beta Recorded = 400
VHS Recorded = 180ep 220lp 280sp
SVHS Recorded = 400

The recorders come no where near the quality of the signal that is broadcast.

As time and use slowly break down the magnetic particles on tape the PRACTICALE resolution of the image degrades.

Even the PRO BetaCAM equipment tops out at about 480 - 500 lines when copied.

[Gameshow Host]

Yes, I'm satisfied with this reason. And the other reason people gave. I'm not saying that people should buy a DVD burner, I just thought most people had one, so wondered why they didn't use it. My mistake. I was surprised to read that you're British and you're familiar with VCD outside the Internet. None of my mates has ever heard of it. And I'm certain they don't sell prerecorded VCDs in this country, like they do in America.

[gNOMEintheRedHat]

All of my pre-recorded VCDs came from Asia.

I've never seen one forsale in the US except for a few greymarket dealers.

[91BRAVO]

Because I can

Obviously you are young and impressionable.

I can remember when 8 Track Tapes were the "Best of the best"

Beta max was far superior than VHS.

why ask why?

[Gameshow Host]

gNOMEintheRedHat>> What I was talking about was the vertical resolution. The vertical resolution used by ALL video storage media is the same, it is 480 for NTSC and 576 for PAL. (Well, actually some only store the visible area of picture but the resolution is still the same). The information you gave was about the horizontal resolution, and as I said, that is roughly the same as VHS, but resolution is less important.

91BRAVO> I'm not all that young. I think DVD is an excellent video format, and I have never thought that until now. I never used VHS, because I thought it was crap. I have used Beta, but only beacuse it was the best I could get. I have always hated analogue video formats.

[91BRAVO]

betamax has never been the best you can get.

ever hear of 12 inch video cd's?

ever hear of 1/2 inch broadcast digital tape?

or how about 1 inch tape? ... or even older 2 inch tape?

if you are old enough to have used beta the above technologies were available during beta's life and are fare superior to beta.

Just curious ...

[gf]

Gameshow Host

Firstly, VHS video tapes have been around all my life. I remember we got our first one when I was a little boy. I have never liked video tape, and have never bought a prerecorded video tape, because I knew that one day digital video would arrive.

Wow you knew that they were digital video before the inventors did when you were a little boy, how about helping me with some stockmarket picks.

[91BRAVO]

12" laserdisc's have been around since the mid 80's

in fact many nationally (US) known rental shops would rent them.

2" tape has been around for many decades

1" tape has been around for a few decades

1/2" tape has been around for a few decades as well

My point is that for someone who knows his $hit as a videophile, you have no background to be ripping on analog.

BTW, could you inform us where 80% of all "digitally recorded" media originated?

let me give you a hint: It's initials are Analog.

Look on the packaging of your DVD's. Do you see AAD, or ADD? The A once again stands for Analog, the D stands for Digital. Do you think that all the soundtracks from your DVD's are recorded from digital source? NOPE! the soundtrack is recorded from live source.

Yes there are few who are DDD but not many.

This has been fun, have a great day! :P

[x2pacalypsehalx]

I realise not everyone is a "quality freak" like me

you just said it right there.

[vb_gsk]

People use VCD become it's cheap (money wize) and is copyright free. There are a lot of great VCD tools out there, where as Mpeg-2 (DVD) tools are quite expensive and the is a lot more CPU power required to edit MPEG-2 compared to MPEG-1.

MPEG-1 has been around for a long time -+1993, and are many options to play it on, and you don't need much CPU power to decode. I use vcd becasue of it's support for standard CD-ROM support. I currently do live video recording to VCD, fitting a very acseptable 2 hour video 800mb onto a 700mb cd-r without over burning. It's great! Also the audio quality is very good, Mono 192kbps, which is equal to 320kbps Stereo---)

So -- that's my speal on the WHY PEOPLE USE VCD...

See'ya in a later post!

[tgscoaster]

Why ask Why?


There are Three main reasons why I make VCD and not DVD

1) DVD burners I would not touch with a 10-meter pole, because there is no standard format. So can you say Beta or X2, I knew you could.

2) Also the DVD burners out now only hold what 5 gig, where they should be able to hold 16 to 18 gig depending on what book you read. So can you say rip off, I knew you could.

3) Another reason is the cost. This is a hobby for me nothing more nothing less. The quality I get now is fine for what I do.

[gNOMEintheRedHat]

91BRAVO,

(SNIF!.. tear rolling down cheek)

I do remember LaserDisk (still have a few)
When they were maid with care they were better than the best DVDs!
However, many of the DVDs to come off the line in the last 18 months are far superior to MANY of my LDs.

At my first "Real Job" We used a LaserDisk Wrighter!
Think of how painfull it was to walk in the door after letting it write the disk over night and find that you had created a $200 serving platter.
a $0.50 coaster is nothing.

My firs VTR was a Zenith 3/4 machine.... I was never that impressed with it.

I've played with D1 tapes, I don't know if they are the 1" digitals though.

The FIRST digital video machine I worked with had tapes the size of a briefcase! I transfered to a different department before I got to use it much. We bought it to replaced the $60,000 LaserDisk Writer we were using.

[Dauid]

Yeah, good old laserdisk.

When everyone is sitting around waiting for the star wars trilogy to be released on dvd, I can watch them any time I want with great quality and dolby digital sound.

[Greg12]

DVD is the way to go, it's just expensive

[ktnwin]

Why do people make VCDs?
Pretty simple. Before DVD burner becomes available (and DVD-R blank discs come down in price), VCD is a method to keep your home movies.

Let me speak up MY REASONS:
1) I use XVCD and SVCD rather than VCD so quality is not a problem here, it's not as good as DVD but to most viewers (friends and family members), no one notice it's not DVD
2) random access to any video clips: if you have gone thru the trouble of finding the right tape, then fast forward / rewind to find the right video clip you want to show (or your vievwers want to see), you will appreciate X/S/VCD before DVD recorders exist.
3) I have put numerous "lessons" (dance, guitar, excercise etc..) on XVCD, this really simplies my learning curve. At the touch of a single button, I can watch the right lesson. Try this with a VCR !!!

Granted, now that DVD recorder and blank media are coming down in price, I will switch to that format, but still very grateful for its predecessor formats. Without those, my life would not be this rich.

[Gameshow Host]

91BRAVO

> betamax has never been the best you can get.
> ever hear of 12 inch video cd's?
> ever hear of 1/2 inch broadcast digital tape?
> or how about 1 inch tape? ... or even older 2 inch tape?

Sorry, but where I live they don't sell those formats (not in the high street shops) and I've never heard of them. I've heard of the term laserdisc, probably on TV, I thought that was just an American term for CD. The best format when I was a kid was always Beta, and then it was phased out. And 1/2 inch broadcast digital tape sounds a little expensive for a teenager with no money! When I said Beta was "the best I could get", perhaps I should have said "the best I could afford". The only time I ever got money was on my birthday! I'm sorry but I'm not very knowledgable about all these different video formats, the only ones I know about are VHS, Beta and now DVD. I used to use Beta because I never saw anything else in the shops and if I could have gone on the Internet in 1983 and asked people about video formats I would have, but unfortunately that was about 15 years before I got a modem.

> BTW, could you inform us where 80% of all "digitally recorded" media originated?

Sorry, I can't answer that question. I don't know much about recording and production. I'm a newbie to all this, and I'm not a professional like some of you guys. All I know about video is just basic facts about its resolution I read on the Internet.


gf>>

> Wow you knew that they were digital video before the inventors did when you were a little boy, how about helping me with some stockmarket picks.

Okay, I didn't "know about" digital video. (I'm not a psychic!) I always HOPED that digital video would come along, but I didn't know for certain that it would. But it did seem pretty inevitable that one day all video would be digital - simply because digital is better than analogue. When I was a kid in the early 80s I got my first computer, and as the years went by I noticed how rapidly computers were evolving and by the late 80s computers could "do" video, even if it was really crap. It was about this time I realised a time would come when tapes would be phased out and everyone would store all their videos on their computer in digital format. We're not quite there yet, as my PC is not connected to all the screens in my house, and I do not have all my videos on my hard drive. But things have evolved much faster than I had ever expected, so maybe it will happen soon? I have never liked tapes, so by the time I was old enough to buy them, I really didn't want to. I guess I just don't like tapes. Now DVDs are here, I'm happy to buy them.


x2pacalypsehalx>>

> > I realise not everyone is a "quality freak" like me

> you just said it right there.

I have to admit I am very sad when it comes to obsessing over quality. I order all my NTSC videos from America, because I want to watch them in NTSC, if I buy one here in England they're all converted to PAL so I lose fps and I get a re-scaled image! (My mates think I'm really sad for going to this length!) :)


To all >> When I came here to the VCD forum and asked "Why do you all use VCD?" I should have realised I was in for a lot of replies! Mirror Image was right, it's like me going to a Ford forum and asking why everyone drives Fords. I shoud have asked this question somewhere else!

[Gameshow Host]

I just remembered something. My ex girlfriend was from Thailand and she once brought back some illegal CDs that she bought there and one of them had a full movie on it (it was an illegal one) and I watched some of it and the quality was really bad. I mean so bad you could barely concentrate on the film. This probably wasn't technically a VCD, but it was a CD with video on! That's the only time I've seen anything even close to a VCD, and that came from another country. I suppose if I lived somewhere were VCD was common and popular I might feel more inclined to use it. But after using DVDs for years and then finding out about VCDs AFTER DVDs, they seem rubbish in comparison.

[Dauid]

Sorry, but where I live they don't sell those formats (not in the high street shops) and I've never heard of them. I've heard of the term laserdisc, probably on TV, I thought that was just an American term for CD.

Didnt you live in the UK? I thought laserdiscs used to be kind of big there (at least among home cinema enthusiasts).
I know there were lots of PAL laserdiscs that I could order from the UK but I never did because only NTSC laserdiscs could have a Dolby Digital track.

[condone]

anyone else think this should be locked? points have been made, opinions have been voiced, been going on a bit too long.