Mpeg 1 and Mpeg 2, whats the real life difference?

[doot]

Thats the question basicly, is it worth using MPEG 2 over 1 and what bitrates do one MPEG bocome better than the other

[kwag]

Thats the question basicly, is it worth using MPEG 2 over 1 and what bitrates do one MPEG bocome better than the other

It depends on your target.

MPEG-1 was designed for bitrates below 2Mbps for VCD's etc.
MPEG-2 was designed for Digital Video Broadcasts (DVB), DVD, and applications above 2Mbps.

In one sentence:

Below 2Mbps MPEG-1 is superior to MPEG-2, and above 2Mbps, MPEG-2 is superior to MPEG-1.

kwag

[energy80s]

Although Kwag, at bitrates above about 6mbps I haven't seen any real difference in the two. That's why I use MPEG1 as every damn programme will recognise it!

[kwag]

Ditto!.

kwag

[Spicuzza]

doot,
From what I understand the compression technique known as MPEG is the same regardless whether it's MPEG-1 or MPEG-2. MPEG is MPEG.

MPEG-2 has more options most notably the use of fields when the target playback device is the TV. MPEG-1 is easier to work with and if you are doing video projects that are going to be distributed to others it's a safe bet for being backwards compatible. I'm not talking here about VCD or SVCD just a video clip in MPEG-1 burned on a CD for someone to play on their computer.

All things being equal you would be hard pressed to find a difference in visual quality from the exact same video clip with the exact same bit rate from MPEG-1 or MPEG-2.

The crux of your post is, "is it worth using MPEG 2 over 1"? Yes, maybe, for example, my son's DVD player will only play a compliant VCD. If I up the bit rate for more visual quality it chokes. It will absolutely not play anything xVCD. However, it also will play compliant SVCD's so if I'm making a video for him knowing that it's going to be played on his DVD player then MPEG-2, field order B, SVCD, is the only way to go.

Didn't mean to ramble. Hope this helps.

Gary

[Mirror_Image]

More info than you probably want:

http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/research/mpeg/faq/mpeg2-v38/faq_v38.html

[baker]

mpeg 1- compress better than mpeg 2 although data is lost, movies wont look exactly the same so mpeg1 is a bad archivile foemat.

mpeg 2- dosn't compress as well as mpeg 1 but keeps all the detail so movies can be stored in mpeg 2 for later use.

So if you are deciding to make a once off copy of your film use mpeg 1 but if you are planing to reencode it at a later date mpeg 2 as it will look more like the original

Baker

[rrhea]

You need to provide more information for us to answer your question. What is your intended application?

If you want to burn a CD that can play video on your DVD player, (I assume so, since that is what this web site is all about) then the best thing to do would be to find out the capabilities of your DVD player.
Look up your make and model of DVD player using the brown "DVD Players" selection to your left.

If your DVD player can play only Video CDs (VCD), then MPEG1 is your only choice. Check to see if your player can play back (X)VCD - does it allow MPEG1 at a higher bitrate? Standard VCD is not of good quality (1150 kbps). You will get better results with bitrates at least 2000 kbps. I

If your DVD player can play Super Video CD (SVCD), then MPEG2 is usually your better choice, with better quality video. MPEG2 is used in high-quality video such as satellite TV and DVD.

If you want to play back your video on a computer, MPEG2 is usually the better choice, as it is usually of higher quality than MPEG1. However, Windows does not come with the capability of playing back MPEG2. You will need a software DVD player or video editor with MPEG2 capability to be installed.

If you have an older computer (300 MHz CPU or less), you may want to stick to MPEG1, as I have found that it plays back better on older systems.

[doot]

Basicly I just wanted to get a bit more infomation on each Mpeg, But my DVD player does play SVCD and have made a few films that use 2 CD`s at varying bitrates mostly at around 1650 to 1850 to keep the films to 2 CD`s. I will probaly stick to MPEG 2 as my DVD player seems to play these better than MPEG 1 disc`s, done an anamorpic disc last night and doesen`t look to bad at a bitrate of 1664.

All I gotta do now is see if I can get MPEg multichannel audio to play back.

Thanks for all reply`s

[kinneera]

Below 2Mbps MPEG-1 is superior to MPEG-2, and above 2Mbps, MPEG-2 is superior to MPEG-1.

Flat out wrong but not worth arguing over yet again. I recommend to anyone who really cares about what they're doing that they bother to read the real information like Kwag obviously never has. The link provided by Mirror_Image is an excellent starting point.

[kwag]

Below 2Mbps MPEG-1 is superior to MPEG-2, and above 2Mbps, MPEG-2 is superior to MPEG-1.

Flat out wrong but not worth arguing over yet again. I recommend to anyone who really cares about what they're doing that they bother to read the real information like Kwag obviously never has. The link provided by Mirror_Image is an excellent starting point.

Sorry. But when I know something is right, I like everyone to know too.

Here's a graph from a real profesional analysis regarding mpeg's.
I'm sorry for not revealing the source, but If I get the ok from the author, I will post the references to the graph.



Why do you think that the minimum bit rate DVD specs are 2MB?.
Because MPEG-2 below 2Mbps looks pretty unstable.

I guess some people just don't understand that the MPEG-2 structure is more complex and advanced than MPEG-1, and that's exactly why MPEG-1 performs better at lower bitrates.

MPEG-2 was designed for DVD and DVB at bit rates above 2Mbps. Below that is unacceptable quality. No matter what encoder you try.

Unless you have a 9" tv screen

kwag

[kinneera]

Well...if you could read your own graph...

There's a rather substantial difference between full-D1 and SIF (352x240), which is the only comparison drawn here between MPEG1 and MPEG2. I don't need the stupid graph to tell me that, given sufficient bitrate, 4 times the resolution looks better. But that's beside the point, since it doesn't say anything about MPEG1 vs MPEG2.

Show me a graph that says that MPEG2 at SIF looks worse than MPEG1 at SIF at 1Mbps, or that MPEG1 at full-D1 looks worse than MPEG2 at full-D1 at 8Mbps, and I'll believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

[kwag]

Well...if you could read your own graph...

There's a rather substantial difference between full-D1 and SIF (352x240), which is the only comparison drawn here between MPEG1 and MPEG2. I don't need the stupid graph to tell me that, given sufficient bitrate, 4 times the resolution looks better. But that's beside the point, since it doesn't say anything about MPEG1 vs MPEG2.

Show me a graph that says that MPEG2 at SIF looks worse than MPEG1 at SIF at 1Mbps, or that MPEG1 at full-D1 looks worse than MPEG2 at full-D1 at 8Mbps, and I'll believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

Oh I can, but I think you can't!

My point is simple and clear:
Do you see MPEG-2 anywhere below 2Mbps??

Don't think so.

As for facts, every compression I have done with CCE, Panasonic, BBMpeg, TMPEG, Honestech, you mention it, encoders at MPEG-2 below 2Mbps never looks as good as an MPEG-1 at that bit rate.

But if you're happy with your theory, that's fine.
I'm very happy with my tried-and-proven facts.

"Don't worry, be happy now"

kwag

[kinneera]

Dude, can you read???

The reason MPEG2 doesn't appear below 2Mbps is because there isn't any curve that shows MPEG2 at SIF!

If you encode MPEG2 at SIF, that red curve will shift to the left and end up at about the same place as the MPEG1 curve. Similarly, if you change the MPEG1 to full-D1 it will shift to the right and its slope will increase to more closely match the DVD (green) curve.

Your graph proves the significance of resolution, NOT MPEG1 vs. MPEG2. Again, I would love for you to produce a graph that shows the things I asked for in my last post.

Posting a graph sure looks cool, but I suggest you figure out how to read it before you do so next time.

[Shabubu]

Ok children, lets play nice. Firstly before anyone starts saying that only they are right I suggest reading the earlier linked document...

Secondly to Kwag...

You see Mpeg-2 below 2Mbps on every SVCD I make. Realistically in real world commercial sales you only ever see Mpeg-2 on DVD's, thus full D1, thus higher than 2mpbs needed. End of story

Mpeg 1 is an older format than Mpeg2, the main additions are re-writing of stream definitions, headers and support for interlacing. The compression techniques are pretty similar (though apparently mpeg-2 is 20% more efficient, so that scutters your point). Why do you think you only see MPEG-1 on VCD's at 1150 ???, not because it's a better compression below 2mbps but because it's the standard. (I'm talking in shops here, what people do on their own coms is their own business, and not necessarily right, look at realmedia for christ's sake).

In short the only real advantage to Mpeg 1 is that the codecs are free in windows and the encoding is quicker (as you usually use cbr).

[BTIP]

It's damn simple!
MPEG-2 is better if your willing to cope with larger file sizes!
Duh......

[vhelp]

evening all...

ahh, i love graphs!! ...and finger paiting too!! he, he...
...use to make'em all the time. :P

Its "war of the graphs", he, he....

whoever turns out (or is) right (like it really matters) keep you chin
up and move on. When I'm wrong (not saying anyone is) I admit it
and laugh about it. "...ok, so I was wrong"

BTIP,
Yes, i agree w/ you there, sort of. IMO, m2 is on a whole, better.

That was why I changed from mpeg1 to mpeg2, but every now and then,
i like to explore new ideas using older format, yes, even mpeg1. It still
has it's applications, even when DVD-R (or whatever they R calling them)
hits the market in LOW $ prices, there will always be room for mpeg1.
ie, more space per CD, hence more movie time, or even, more movie's.
ie, at for example, 4.7g, you could probably put 5 to 8+ good quality
TV shows on one DVD-R, etc. Just to name a few ideas w/ MPEG1 uses.
Another, is even though CQ (for instance) is low bitrate/quality, upping
up the encoders settings, ie, "Q" could increase quality quite a bit, as I
have ben exploring, and theoretically could put 5 to 8+ TV shows/progreams
on one DVD-R.
That's just an example of an MPEG1 use rolling around in the back of my
mind.

-vhelp

[Spicuzza]

a quote from Mirror_Image's link seems to be on point.....

"MPEG is an institution unto itself as seen from within its own universe. When (unadvisedly) placed in the same room, its inhabitants a blood-letting debate can spontaneously erupt among, triggered by mere anxiety over the most subtle juxtaposition of words buried in the most obscure documents. Such stimulus comes readily from transparencies flashed on an overhead projector. Yet at the same time, this gestalt will appear to remain totally indifferent to critical issues set before them for many months."

This has been one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a long time!

Gary

[nobspangle]

A quick point, inspired by Kwag's graph but, relevant to all types of lossey compression. The graph shows bitrate v quality, the bitrate is labeled with a scale in Mbits/s the quality axis is labeled with terms like, VHS quality. There are two major problems with this, firstly who ever saw two VHS cassettes the same quality? Even the same tape played over and over again degrades with time so, What is VHS quality? The second and probably more important point and the underlying crux of lossey compression is that quality, visual quality, audio quality, is subjective. What I think is better quality someone else may say is worse, there are extremes we can all agree on, but when the samples become as close as two identical videos at identical resolutions and identical bitrates, one Mpeg-1 and one Mpeg-2, differences of opinion will always be raised.

For me I find for that video I want to watch on the TV Mpeg-2 is best for video I want to watch on my computer Mpeg-1 is best.