the Matrix

[kwag]

While it might be "conveinent" to have a 2+hr movie on one disc ala-dvd, it surely isnt worth it considering the overall loss in quality. I have used the kvcd template(s) several times, and havent yet gotten results that are worth the cost of a .05 cent CDR. Too each his own though.

Well you obviously are doing something wrong in your encoding, because that's not the feedback I get daily from the people that are using it exclusively.

Did you ever get results like the samples I have posted?

kwag

[adam]

I downloaded both of the new samples...

Kwag you encoded one in vbr and the other in cbr...It probably doesn't make much difference in clips this short but still this is hardly fair.

Anyway when I analyze the clip encoded using your template my bitrate viewer shows an avg bitrate of 1566kbits. At these settings the Matrix will not even come close to fitting on 1 cdr. I realize that this scene has alot of action and with vbr it would be allocated more bitrate, however, the Matrix is 136 mins long and to fit it on one 80 min cdr you would need an avg bitrate of about 660kbits. In order for this action packed scene, as well as many of the other action packed scenes, to have this level of bitrate ex: 1500kbits, you will have to have other scenes encoded with significantly less than 660kbits! With such a low average it is questionable whether you would even get peaks as high as 1500kbits. I don't see how this clip proves anything. These two samples really are more like comparing a 2 cdr xvcd compared to a 3 cdr svcd. Your sample looks fine by itself its about vcd quality but its not at all representative of what you are claiming to be able to achieve. If you used your template at comparable bitrates on an entire movie it would fail miserably.

I really think the only reason you think this level of quality is acceptable is because you are using such heavy noise reduction, in which case you really don't know what your missing. With an avg bitrate under 600kbits there is simply NO way to make an entire movie look acceptable. I would be more interested in seeing some samples from the Matrix which didn't require much bitrate. Can you get acceptable quality with a 10 sec clip with an avg of 400kbits without using noise reduction? That sample would be much more representative of the quality one would get using your template.

Have you ever tried using your template to fit a 2+hr movie onto one 80 min cdr but NOT use noise reduction? Thats the real test because using noise reduction to prevent pixellation is NOT the answer.

No offense to you or anyone else on this board but alot of the people who post here are just happy to get something that actually works on their dvd player. Just because someone praises a template that doesn't make it viable. For those who are happy with this quality thats great, but I really think those people just don't know what they're missing.

[kwag]

I downloaded both of the new samples...

Kwag you encoded one in vbr and the other in cbr...It probably doesn't make much difference in clips this short but still this is hardly fair.

Anyway when I analyze the clip encoded using your template my bitrate viewer shows an avg bitrate of 1566kbits. At these settings the Matrix will not even come close to fitting on 1 cdr. I realize that this scene has alot of action and with vbr it would be allocated more bitrate, however, the Matrix is 136 mins long and to fit it on one 80 min cdr you would need an avg bitrate of about 660kbits. In order for this action packed scene, as well as many of the other action packed scenes, to have this level of bitrate ex: 1500kbits, you will have to have other scenes encoded with significantly less than 660kbits! With such a low average it is questionable whether you would even get peaks as high as 1500kbits. I don't see how this clip proves anything. These two samples really are more like comparing a 2 cdr xvcd compared to a 3 cdr svcd. Your sample looks fine by itself its about vcd quality but its not at all representative of what you are claiming to be able to achieve. If you used your template at comparable bitrates on an entire movie it would fail miserably.

I really think the only reason you think this level of quality is acceptable is because you are using such heavy noise reduction, in which case you really don't know what your missing. With an avg bitrate under 6000kbits there is simply NO way to make an entire movie look acceptable. I would be more interested in seeing some samples from the Matrix which didn't require much bitrate. Can you get acceptable quality with a 10 sec clip with an avg of 400kbits without using noise reduction? That sample would be much more representative of the quality one would get using your template.

Have you ever tried using your template to fit a 2+hr movie onto one 80 min cdr but NOT use noise reduction? Thats the real test because using noise reduction to prevent pixellation is NOT the answer.

No offense to you or anyone else on this board but alot of the people who post here are just happy to get something that actually works on their dvd player. Just because someone praises a template that doesn't make it viable. For those who are happy with this quality thats great, but I really think those people just don't know what they're missing.

Adam, I' sorry, but I guess you are new to this topic, and you haven't read the hundreds of posts on the topic.

"The Matrix" fits COMPLETE in one 80 minute CD-R at the quality you saw above in the samples.

So does "City hall", "Don't say a word", "Hollow Man", and the list is long. Very long.

Please visit kvcd.net and take a look at the posts from movies that people are fitting in one CD-R.

And, as I said, the quality of the complete movie is just like the samples.

And yes, I was unfair, but to my template!

The advantage is to the SVCD, because it's CBR 2,520Kbps againts 2,300Kbps in the KVCD.

So obviously 220Kbps higher in the SVCD is an advantage.

But the visual results tell a different story.

If I increase the MAX bitrate in the KVCD template to 2,520Kbps, and the CQ to 80, it blows away the SVCD. Tried and tested. But then it'll have to go in 2 CD-r's.

kwag

[kwag]

Can you get acceptable quality with a 10 sec clip with an avg of 400kbits without using noise reduction? That sample would be much more representative of the quality one would get using your template.

At 400kbps, VCD, SVCD, XVCD will have an acceptable quality, only on very low lit and almost still videos.

We're not talking about average bit rate here. We're talking about the Constant Quantization features of CQ mode in the latest version of TMPEG.

And, because you asked for it, here's your low action 10 second sample with a total size of 1,203,832 bytes.

http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/matrix-slow.mpg

Average bit rate of 547Kbps.

Don't be fooled by the average bit rate. Look at the Q factor.

Run bit rate viewer again and notice that it's about the same Q for both kvcd samples.

So there's your answer. The Q is constant throughout the movie, but the bit rate can go low, way low, in dark scenes and low action parts.

And I do use a very small amount of noise filter, because it's needed in some cases. In the Matrix DVD, in my HDTV I can see small micro micro blocks if I pause "The Matrix" in some scenes.

So I use TemporalSmoother(1,1), which does a very small cleanup, and the results are amazing.

If my source was a BetaMax digital Master, then, of course I wouldn't need filtering. 8)

That's why we get 120+ minutes in one CD-R at the quality you are seeing.

kwag

[adam]

And yes, I was unfair, but to my template!

The advantage is to the SVCD, because it's CBR 2,520Kbps againts 2,300Kbps in the KVCD.

So obviously 220Kbps higher in the SVCD is an advantage.

Practice what you preach. You challenged us to analyze your samples in a bitrate viewer yet you didn't even bother to do so yourself. Tell me again which one of those samples has the higher peak? The KVCD sample has a significantly higher peak than the svcd sample. Remember vbr is much harder for the encoder to control than cbr.

Thank you very much for that last sample, it was exactly what I wanted to see. I rest my case. The quality of that last clip is horrendous, even with such little movement and detail in the scene. I literally cannot make out the background behind the people, it is a big mess of blocks. Once again the image is way too soft. In the long shots where are they're ears? I can't see them. What about that lamp in the background, how come its just a solid color? In my svcd encode you can see the vertical grooves on it. Mpeg does not look good at 400-500kbits, and your last clip just proved it. And whats even worse is that to achieve peaks of over 2MBits, like in your KVCD sample, you will have have to have many scenes even lower than 400kbits. If this sample looks this bad at 550kbits what will others look like at 200kbits?

Are you even using the same CQ value for each of these samples cause it really doesn't seem like it? Could you tell me what CQ value you used to fit the movie onto 1 80 min cdr, was it 70 like in your template?

[bilbogod]

Sorry to bring this up again, but Adam tell me what you think about this clip ???

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/68f54485/bc/Farscape+Clip/farscape1.mpg.mpg?bc71v48AOeon2kAR

This was the original Farscape sample that left me gobsmacked and all 149 mins maintains this quality on the 1 cd

p.s sorry about the total file size (4.89Mb) but then this is a 50 sec sample

[kwag]

Sorry to bring this up again, but Adam tell me what you think about this clip ???

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/68f54485/bc/Farscape+Clip/farscape1.mpg.mpg?bc71v48AOeon2kAR

This was the original Farscape sample that left me gobsmacked and all 149 mins maintains this quality on the 1 cd

p.s sorry about the total file size (4.89Mb) but then this is a 50 sec sample

Thanks for that reminder bilbogod. 8)

That was indeed the first PAL sample, and it is awesome.

Did you ever do that sample again with the later GOP?
It should be even better than the original.


@Adam:
Please, If you say that the samples are full of blocks, there's a special right now at "Pearl Vision Center".

I'll highlight this for you:
There are more blocks on high speed scenes on a 2,520Kbps SVCD than in a 2,300Kbps KVCD.

You obviously don't know mathematics, as I explained before on the amount of pixels versus bit rate required for an SVCD.

I guess some people just don't want to accept reality.

kwag

[adam]

@Adam:
Please, If you say that the samples are full of blocks, there's a special right now at "Pearl Vision Center".

I'll highlight this for you:
There are more blocks on high speed scenes on a 2,520Kbps SVCD than in a 2,300Kbps KVCD.

You obviously don't know mathematics, as I explained before on the amount of pixels versus bit rate required for an SVCD.

What the hell are you talking about? Where the hell are you getting 2,300kbits from?!?! You are claiming to fit 2+ hrs of content onto 1 80 min cdr. This results in avg bitrates of less than 600kbits. At these bitrates there is so much pixellation that it becomes unwatchable, as your last sample clip clearly showed.

Your claims and your defense of your claims completely contradict each other.

Obviously as resolution increases your number of bits per pixel decreases...What the hell is your point though? Yes if you drop down to 352x480 you have more bits per pixel than svcd but you lose clarity. This is a totally subjective difference and is not a measure of quality. Listen to what your saying...you are basing everything on the amount of pixelation you see in the picture. This is not a measure of quality! That is exactly why all your samples lack so much detail, because you over use noise reduction in order to prevent pixellation. This actually makes the quality WORSE.

Yes using 352x480 over 480x480 gives you more bits per pixel at the cost of sharpness. But how does this in anyway support your claims of being able to fit 2+hrs of content onto 1 cdr?

You need to accept the reality that you don't even know what it is you are trying prove.

[adam]

bilbogod I don't see whats so special about that farscape sample. Look at their faces...notice how you don't really see any lines in the face...again it is just a result of heavy noise reduction.

That resolution is pretty small, with the benefit of vbr it comes pretty close to achieving the bits per pixel that you get with vcd. There is a heck of alot of ghosting and mosquito noise on that clip as well as pixellation but overall its exactly as I would expect mpeg to look at those settings.

[kwag]

Yes using 352x480 over 480x480 gives you more bits per pixel at the cost of sharpness. But how does this in anyway support your claims of being able to fit 2+hrs of content onto 1 cdr?

You need to accept that reality that you don't even know what it is you are trying prove.

Do you mean that you are calling every user in vcdhelp.com, and kvcd.net ( me included ), that use the KVCD template daily and have done 120+ minutes in ONE CD-R A LIAR ???

Sorry, but I must say this, you must be a ShiZzZon's relative.

[adam]

Again I have to ask you what the hell you are talking about. Did I ever say that you can't fit 2+hrs onto 1 cdr? Do you even know what your trying to prove?

Your asking me to call someone a a liar because their opinion differs from mine?

Of course you can fit over two hrs of content onto a cdr, its academic. But it is my opinion, and most other people's as well, that this cannot be done in acceptable quality. Your samples speak for themselves. Yes some people who don't know better will say, wow that looks great. Those people with a discriminating eye will see your samples and immediately write them off. In either case its a subjective matter. No I don't think that you and those who like your template are liars. I'll say it ONE MORE TIME...I don't think you all know better.

If the quality you achieve at that low of a bitrate is acceptable to you than thats great, use it. But when someone asks a question regarding how they should encode, like how this thread started, you cannot suggest that he use your template and squeeze a ridiculous amount of content onto 1 cdr because the vast majority of people will find the quality unacceptable. To offer a subpar quality method to someone who potentially doesn't know better is a disservice. I'm sorry but I think your template only promotes ignorance.

[kinneera]

Sorry, but I must say this, you must be a ShiZzZon's relative.

Are you familiar with the term irony Kwag? Shizzzon's main claim to fame here was his ridiculous claims of quality with 2 hours to a CD. The only person here who sounds like a relative of his is you!!

Anyway...after seeing this thread continue to grow, decided to look at the clips myself.

Farscape - nothing special here. Nothing in this sequence is particularly high motion or complex, and I'm inclined to agree with adam that even then, it has been softened too much.

Matrix (first clip) - ho hum. A 2.35:1 widescreen movie encoded at NTSCFilm framerate, 352x480, and 1700Kbps? Of course it looks fine. I encoded the matrix with TMPGEnc MPEG2 CQ back in the days when I was still doing 480x480 and it looked about the same or better.

Matrix (low motion clip) - that's just ugly. For a scene with that little motion, it's way too soft.

If you're happy with the quality, you're your own best judge. But as has been said so many times before, if your goal is to get it all on 1 CD that's your prerogative, but many of us won't care for the quality. And of course the math of lossy compression means you'll never be able to claim anything on a technical basis, only a subjective qualitative basis. Of course, none of this matters, because this is one of those tiresome topics that comes up monthly, if not weekly, and the torch is always carried by a fanatic of the latest (typically their own) method.

[TwIZzlEr]

I ripped my "The Fifth Element" dvd with Kwag's template, but I used a resulotion of 320x240 cause the defaults wouldn't work in my player. 2 hours 2 minutes, and got a file size of 618 mb. Pretty good if you ask me, and the quality is very nice. Hope you make some more that would work with more players Kwag.

[kwag]

@kinneera

Good.

I just knew you would show along!.
As I have seen very few positive messages in the forums from you.
Always critics.

ShizZzon's family = Adam + kinneera

Who's next?

[adam]

ShizZzon's family = Adam + kinneera

Oh yeah well me dad can beat up your dad...

It's not hard to recognize the point at which one's lack of evidence forces them to resort to petty name calling.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people are critical of your template because the quality really is that bad?

This thread has definitely gone downhill...count me out.

[kinneera]

As I have seen very few positive messages in the forums from you

So you would claim to have read 1000+ posts to decide that I contribute nothing positive?

I occasionally choose to remark on more subjective debates because open discourse helps keep people honest. These seem to be the only threads in which we encounter eachother. The fact that I am not impressed with the quality of your 1CD template puts you squarely in the Shizzzon family, not me (or adam).

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people are critical of your template because the quality really is that bad?

This thread has definitely gone downhill...count me out.

Ditto

[kwag]

ShizZzon's family = Adam + kinneera

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people are critical of your template because the quality really is that bad?

This thread has definitely gone downhill...count me out.

Not really, legally speaking, name calling does not necessarily mean that, but there will always be people who critize everything, and anything specially if they don't understand what their talking about.
Actually I've been pretty busy answering over 1,000 E-mails in less than a month of all the people that are happy.

Not to mention that because of those thousands of people the guys here at vcdhelp, not only decided to post my template but they encourage me to open my own site KVCD.net. hence the name.

And I have to be grateful, because thanks to you hundreds of people are writting to defend my template, and trust me, they are very demmanding about the quality of work they like, so you see, I don't have to resort to name calling, 8) Hey! I don't even have to defend my template because all those SATISFIED people are doing it for me, I'm the talk of the town thanks to you

But then there's always a couple, like you, that are closed like a rusted bolt

Your comments say it all.
Now I rest MY case.

kwag

[poopyhead]

hey kwag....if those "hundreds" of ppl who absolutely love and use exclusively your template saw a sample SVCD dvd rip done by another of the other ppl on vcdhelp.com, they definitely will see a big difference...i can personally upload a sample of one of my SVCD dvd rips i was able to fit on 2 CDs and you can have that sample on your website as a comparison

the only reason those ppl think your template is great is cuz they haven't seen better....it would only be fair if they compared a kvcd sample (w/o noise reduction) done by u and an SVCD sample done by someone else

i'm guessing those ppl were used to the highly compressed dvd rips downloaded from online or IRC...i'm sure in comparison, yours must look "great"

also, as i mentioned in another post: why are u using CQ VBR w/ your template and not 2 pass VBR? you need as many passes as you can get w/ such low bitrates you need to fit matrix on 1 CD

[bilbogod]

He he...... First off can I just give a non scientific response, its the one I know best and Ill bet your average movie watcher isn't a scientist either.
That Farscape clip has no noise reduction used in it at all, I wouldn't have even known how to apply this at the time if you had asked.
Kwag - It is using the original GOP, and not your recently updated one.
Adam and Kineera, I could put a wager on it that that Film as seen on my 19inch philips 4:3 t.v carries no discernable difference when viewed from 10ft (ave viewing distance ??)as compared to the original dvd. I have fooled everyone who has ever come into my house and seen it.
Secondly, just how much detail in a fast motion scene e.g. fighting, martial arts etc do you think that your brain and eye can assimilate with regards to the appearance of blocks in rapid scene changes. Again I'll bet the average viewer would notice only one thing. Either the scene breaks up making an unrecogniseable image or it resembles what it should. At such a fast transition you are not going to notice the acne scars on the protagonists face !!! Again this is all subjective since we have our own standards of acceptability albeit that peoples criteria seems to differ. Presumably some people here will not be watching Star Wars 2 at the cinema not because the picture is crap but because it cant possibly compare to the quality of the dvd when it comes out. All thoses pops, scratches and whistles
I love dvd2svcds 3 cd quality for your average blockbuster, but for pop videos, black and white movies, dvd extras and any movie not carrying an array of very bright colours (note that Matrix is a dark film) it is perfect. For me it all boils down to clarity. Watching a film like The Big Blue, Empire Of The Sun or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon demands lavish colours for which the highest resolutions and bitrates pay dividends. Anything else is highly subjective and must depend on other factors such as the size of your t.v., viewing distance etc.
Most people visiting VCDHelp probably want something that looks good and not just watchable - to this end the template succeeds admirably. Its also worth pointing out that this format makes for a brilliant alternative to DivX and one that will generally astounds the multitude of those downloading substandard fare. For visual perfectionists buy the dvd, cause if the difference between kvcd and svcd effects your enjoyability that you can bet your bottom dollar that the difference between svcd and dvd will ruin it [/b]

[poopyhead]

Most people visiting VCDHelp probably want something that looks good and not just watchable - to this end the template succeeds admirably.

yikes, it fails by a long shot....have you tried watching any of the kvcd samples on your computer? it's horrible.....maybe if you're watching on a small TV sitting far away (cuz doing that will also make normal VCDs look pretty good)....it may all be subjective, but take a good look at the backgrounds and even the people's faces when you're watching the samples on the computer...really, really bad

It's also worth pointing out that this format makes for a brilliant alternative to DivX and one that will generally astounds the multitude of those downloading substandard fare.

a well done divx will completely distroy kvcd....divx is compared to SVCD, not this kvcd stuff (don't compare to the divx from the p2p programs cuz they are poorly done)...the divx done by release groups on IRC are awesome, to say the least, and should definitely not be compared to crap like kvcd

[bilbogod]

Err just a quickie......I seriously hope you are not doing comparisons of the samples on your p.c. Cause then I will have to agree, I think all vcds look shite.
Sorry but this medium is meant for tv playback...burn out the sample and you'll see what I mean.
p.s. You can not play a 1min 5Mb DivX on your standalone....you can play a 1min 5Mb kvcd....though....
I know which I would rather download from peer to peer

[kwag]

yikes, it fails by a long shot....have you tried watching any of the kvcd samples on your computer? it's horrible.....maybe if you're watching on a small TV sitting far away (cuz doing that will also make normal VCDs look pretty good)....it may all be subjective, but take a good look at the backgrounds and even the people's faces when you're watching the samples on the computer...really, really bad

Of course it will look like crap on most computers. That's caused by the software mpeg decoder you have. And the close distance you're looking at the screen.
If you use WinDVD, it will look excelent besides PowerDVD.
And if you burn the sample, and view it in a real DVD player, then WinDVD will look like crap.

Oh, as for DIVx, it looks truly amazing if the bitrates are above 3,000

Try a DIVx with the bit rates in the KVCD and see how junkie it looks. Plus as said above, can't watch DIVx on a standalone DVD player.

Better yet, look at the samples in a HDTV, and step back 5 feet.
As bilbogod said. I've fooled everyone that has seen it, and they thought it was a DVD.

Now if anyone watches TV at a distance of 6 inches, of course they'll see some artifacts, but also need to check their head

kwag

[kwag]

also, as i mentioned in another post: why are u using CQ VBR w/ your template and not 2 pass VBR? you need as many passes as you can get w/ such low bitrates you need to fit matrix on 1 CD

I forgot to answer this one.

I've explained this before. Quality/bit rate is not linear.

In the newer versions of TMPEG 2.5x, the CQ mode gives higher quality than 2-pass VBR mode.

I also did "Matrix" with 2-pass, CCE 3-pass, and the best result was TMPEG's CQ mode.

The only advantage to multiple pass VBR is that you can predict the final size very closely. But the longer the movie, the worse the quality, because the bit rate will be lower as the movie time increases.

On the other hand, with CQ mode, you can't predict the final size but the quality will be better than an X-pass VBR. This of course depends on the encoder. But we're talking about TMPEG here.


Here's an excelent explanation about CQ, VBR, etc modes:
http://tangentsoft.net/video/mpeg/enc-modes.html

If you don't want to read it, here's the conclusion of the article:

------------------------
Conclusion
VBR modes are worth using, when you're not forced to use CBR. And when you can get away with it, pure CQ modes are the best VBR types of all. You have to work harder to get good video, but you can achieve absolutely stunning results with a properly-tuned CQ encoder.
------------------------

kwag

[energy80s]

Just thought I'd jump in here. I have been using Kwag's template on various sources and am very happy with it. Recently encoded the film Enigma which was nearly 2 hours and the quality was fine. However I also did a copy in my own CVD format for archive purposes (and for later transfer onto DVD when a final standard is actually agreed - probably in 2004.)

I have used the SVCD template in the past but the quality isn't wonderful and it is a non-standard picture size that very few machines will actually play. I now use a CVD template which I modified to give 48k sound as this is DVD standard. I use CBR as I wouldn't be bothered running 2 passes on a VBR file for poorer picture quality!

For basic MPEG1 coding, Kwag's template is simply the best one I've ever seen! Maybe if you would stop bitching about what a couple of samples looked like and actually encoded a few films yourself you'd realise just how useful Kwag's template really is.

[Kdiddy]

Well it wouldnt be a good debate if I didnt join now would it..lol

Kwag: A couple of points where people have I & others seem to have issue with you that I think are getting lost.

How does this pertain to what the original poster wanted?
So many times posts have gone ary from the original intent. The intent here was for a "2 CD" rip. Not one. It would be best to provide answers for what is desired instead of pushing off another idea. It is sort like the carsalesmen theme, dont try to sale me model B, when I asked about model A. If you want to help the poster to answer there question first, then suggest your template, cool. But you remind me of "Antonio S.", who just goes from post to post throwing in his template idea as if it were the holy grail.

Who is being more Shizzzzzzon-ish?
I really really don't like saying anyone is being that way. All I can say is, Sean always put claims forth about fitting any movie on 1 CD and about the "millions & million of Hulkamainacs" who agreed with him. I'll just leave it at that.

The "thounsands of people can't be wrong" statement:
Thousands?? umm ok, to that I can only say, millions supported Hitler, thousands supported Milosevic, thousands support Saddam & Osama. So this would not be the defense I would use to validify a template. When it becomes an industry standard, then we can talk.

KVCD vs. multi-CD SVCDS.
First let me start by saying, to each his own. If you want a 1 CD VCD of a movie. Then Im sure Kwag's template is what you want probably look at first. However, there some points that must known & understood.
Predicitability: Using your own quoted website, "CQ modes let you pick a desired quality/Q level, and let the bit rate vary to compensate. This means that you cannot predict the bitrate output from a plain CQ mode". This is one of main the issues that I feel should be raised. While Kwag may feel he has it down to a science. I do see many people using this only to still find that their filesize is too big. Thus having to wait another 4, 6, 8 hours, however long it takes for their machine in order to do it again.
Fidelity, "Quality" While yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are times when mathmatics & science do take precedence. This being one of those times. Again, quoting your own source,"CCE SP's one remaining advantage, multi-pass VBR, is worth it. This mode gets you the quality of CQ mode, while still giving you complete control over the bit rate. If you must have the highest quality but can't tolerate unpredictable bit rates, this is the only encoder that will do." This statement alone tells me that your a 1 CD KVCD version can not match up to that of a 2 CD CCE produced SVCD. But let's delve further with the use of mathematics.
I think we can all agree that in order for a 120 min movie to fit on 1 CD, the average bitrate would HAVE to be ~776 kbps (if combine with 128 kbps audio). So using the KVCD template where the Q factor would be lets say a constant 4. On 2 CDs, the average bitrate would jump to 1681. In CCE where can adjust the Q factor as well, but for laughs, we'll say the Q factor is 10. I think you will have a hard time convincing someone that a scene done at 776 kbps, 4 QF is better than 1681 kbps, 10 QF. Mainly due to the fact that "The quantization (Q) level of an MPEG stream is a measure of the amount of data the encoder threw away to bring the bit rate down" So even if the 2 CD throws away more data, it is still twice as high in bitrate. Combining this with your "I explained before on the amount of pixels versus bit rate required for an SVCD." statement. 352x480 = 169 kpixels, 776 kbps divided by that #, equals 4.6 bit/pixel. Conversely 1681 kbps divided by that #, equals 9.9 bit/pixel, even the standard 480x480, 1681 is divided by it, provides a 7.2 bit/pixel.

But the longer the movie, the worse the quality, because the bit rate will be lower as the movie time increases.:
I have to call you on this one. Regardless of the length of movie, it the average bitrate is set to a particular #, it will not lower itself based time of the movie. Please explain, how you come up with this asssesment.

Again, I would restate, if the aim is to place any movie on 1 CD, then yes, try Kwags template. However, it will not be better or the same as 2 CD rip done "correctly" with CCE. Personally, i'll take the quality gain along with the oppurtunity to get up to use the bathroom while I change disks.

[kwag]

@Kdiddy

"How does this pertain to what the original poster wanted? "

It doesn't. Actually it's a suggestion of convenience. And most people like it. But then there are some who don't.


"But the longer the movie, the worse the quality, because the bit rate will be lower as the movie time increases.:
I have to call you on this one. Regardless of the length of movie, it the average bitrate is set to a particular #, it will not lower itself based time of the movie. Please explain, how you come up with this asssesment. "

You got to be kidding if you don't understand this one. This is plain math. Take for example a movie of 240 minutes. 4 hours. If you use a VBR calculator, like the one in FitCD, the average bit rate for a 4 hour movie is about 329Kbps at an audio rate of 128Kbps for a 80 minute CD-R. How do you think that movie is going to look? Like crap!

So the longer the movie, the lower the average bit rate, If you want to fit it in X size CD-R which is constant.

Now do you understand that?

next and last:

"Again, I would restate, if the aim is to place any movie on 1 CD, then yes, try Kwags template. However, it will not be better or the same as 2 CD rip done "correctly" with CCE. Personally, i'll take the quality gain along with the oppurtunity to get up to use the bathroom while I change disks."

I'm sorry, but the new version of TMPEG blew away CCE. I've tested 2-pass and 3-pass VBR in CCE and CQ in TMPEG has, for your information, better quality/fidelity/stability/motion estimation algorithms, etc.

And if anyone has any doubt about this, and is not happy with a single CD-R made with KVCD, then be my guest and increase the CQ to 84.

This will blow away every standard SVCD and give you close to an hour ( or more ) on each CD-R.

Beyond 84+, there's no more gain in quality, or to make you happy "quality/fidelity/stability/motion estimation" just so that I don't miss your favorite terms.

Oh, and before anyone says that still 480x480 is sharper than 352x480, technically speaking, yes. Visually speaking NO.

There is a huge difference between CQ and VBR. They are NOT the same, and I think some people still just don't understand this issue.

kwag

[jeex]

the kvcd does look pretty good, but you've got to realise the next step in general public video is dvd-r. vcd is has pretty much been maxed out. svcd looks good, its just the hassle of having to have 2 or 3 cd's per movie is a pain.. once dvd-r rolls around, you'll be able to move your svcd's on to dvd-r.. hey ya may even be able to squeeze 2 or 3 movies on to one dvd-r, and have a nice little movie selection menu.. sorta like the old multigame nintendo cartridge's..

kwag, is it your dream that one day on the outside of an apex box it will read "dvd/vcd/svcd/mp3/kvcd" ? heh

[poopyhead]

hey kwag..why don't u have some samples of SVCDs done by other ppl at vcdhelp on your website as a comparison..

let the ppl decide that way

[bilbogod]

I think some of the critics should realise that technical aspects aside, Kwag has good reason to offer up his template. It works well and hence the enthusiasm. This is in complete contrast to shiZZZoN who was an idle braggard producing little or no material for analysis and room for educated debates.
Adam I still cant help feeling that your criteria for acceptability is above what would realistically interest the masses that frequent this forum. I quote

that this cannot be done in acceptable quality.

followed later by ....

squeeze a ridiculous amount of content onto 1 cdr because the vast majority of people will find the quality unacceptable.

Your probably right about the lines not showing up on the protagonists face (I haven't checked the dvd source) but who the hell is gonna notice that sat 10 feet from the screen??? Common guys common sense please !!! To be fair my t.v. is probably smaller than most...What is the average these days??
I honestly believe that a passion for a hobby like this serves to distance you from the reality of what the lay person thinks. There's nothing wrong with wanting the best, but remember that something less than that does not equal crap.......

[baker]

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING !!

Kwags templet only works with the latest version of tmpegenc#!!!!

Any other version will throw out crap!!, I tested )

Baker