I am trying to rip the matrix but it come on 4 cd's how can i make in to 2? i heard you can will xvcd is this true?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 105
Originally Posted by objectseven
and here http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103&highlight=matrix
Originally Posted by kwag
Originally Posted by kwag
for any format, logic would dictate that 2 hrs 20+ min of video in <800 MB of space will not result in very good quality....
maybe, 1 disc kvcd will look better than 1 disc SVCD...but that's not my point here....
in this case, 2 disc VCD...3-4 disc SVCD.....but 1 disc kvcd????
how are the quality comparisons made??? compared on computer monitors up close??? watching dvd rips on small TVs will make many rips look better, even though you can see the problems on computer monitor...
why even bother trying to fit it on 1 cd? hell, with prices falling thru the floor i have 3 dirt-cheap standalone players stacked on top of each other so i dont have to swap discs. you could even fill your pc with 3 dvdrom drives for less than $20 apiece retail
Originally Posted by poopyhead
Well, here it is ( again! )
30 second sample and only 4mb file ( with a lot of action! )
Why even bother trying to fit it on 1 cd?
Simple. All original DVD chapters in one CD-R
Try that with 3 DVD players
the most annoying thing to me is when you insert a dvd & instead of the movie playing right away you get a stupid menu. kwag, you're just a cheap bastard trying to save $.05 on cdr media. dont get me wrong, there was a point in my life when i could perfectly relate to that. whatever you can achieve with x bitrate(and im not conceding anything here) you can do even better with x+y bitrate. the mere possibility of the former precludes the latter
Originally Posted by stanwebber
I just put "Pearl Harbor" in 2 KVCD's. Because it's a 3 hour movie, and I wanted full 352x480 resolution, I decided to encode in two 90 minute mpeg files and increasing the CQ in my template.
The result is an SVCD+ quality.
Now I have 2 CD-R's with my full movie.
Now "Pearl Harbor" in SVCD, how many CD-R's do you need?.
Four ( Maybe five ) right?
So because you say that DVD players are cheap now, you need 5 DVD players to watch your movie.
Not to mention that you need an S-Video or Composite video switch, so that every time each SVCD ends, you get up and press the next swith, an continue to watch your movie.
Repeat each step after each SVCD ends.
WOW call this versatility
And I guess you can't read, because you said that the most annoying thing is that you insert a dvd and instead of the movie playing right away you get a stupid menu.
I assume that was directed at my prior post, and I didn't say that I put the menus in the CD-R. Only the full chapters.
So when I put the KVCD in the DVD player, it starts to play the movie immediately.
But then again, what's that "village ?????" under your name :P
Yes, I can vouch for the KVCD format. I have just encoded Enigma (a 1 hr 53 min 54 sec film) onto one CD-R and the quality is great. I also have it as a 3 disc CVD and the quality is excellent. Wouldn't touch SVCD anymore as it is totally non-standard and very little plays it properly.
Originally Posted by energy80s
If your going to moan about standards then you shouldn't touch KVCD either, because that's not "standard" either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that KVCD is bad, or SVCD. But please don't say that SVCD is not standard spec, cause it's standard to SVCD specs, which is a published set of standards, and pretty strict (when compared to DVD).
Right Kwag answer my question:
I have been doing 2cd svcd using cce for a long time, I use a res of 352x576 for future compliance with dvd. I also set the audio at 48khz for compliance also. Now will I retain the same quailty using tmpegenc and your templet except for 48khz audio. So will I retain the same svcd quailty on one cd!!! I dont think this is possible!! I understand that it possible to fit 120 mins of 352x288 material on one cd(hell I even tried it!!) But surely 352x576 is too much????
Think about that!!!
Svcd quailty, future dvd complaince, one cd!!! WOW!!!
must be impossible!!
The fact is that there are far more DVD/(X)VCD players in the market than DVD/SVCD.
Consequently, even though KVCD is a type of XVCD, it plays in more DVD players than SVCD's.
We've been over this before. But let me refresh your memories.
Take this sample.
It's 352x480 KVCD.
Do the same at SVCD, and tell me if you can see a difference.
Stan......Try and remember that not everyone who uses this site lives in the states. The price of blank media varys cosiderably depending on what neck of the woods you are from. 5 cents ......I wish......
Right that sample was 4mb for 30 secs!! Thats a lot!! I know what you are going to say about other seens not tkaing as much so dont bother.
One more question for you:
Is kvcd with 48kjz audio fully dvd compatible???
You see I make all my svcds standard except I change the audio to 48khz and the res to 352x576 thus when I get a Burner I can put my films on dvd!! And cause of the size of about 1.4gbs per film I can fit a few per dvd!!
Also my captures are from a noisey digital source so I guess kvcd aint for me, ahh well, nice dream.
pearl harbor on 2 discs? have you watched these kvcds on your computer monitor up close? i've seen VCDs on smaller size TVs that looked decent....
if you compared kvcd to svcd on computer monitor...i'm sure you can tell a whole world of difference (or maybe on the giant project TVs)
Originally Posted by poopyhead
Why? let's do the numbers again:
352 * 240 = 84,480 pixels. Needs 1,150Kbps.
352 * 480 = 168,960 pixels. Needs 2,300Kbps.
480 * 480 = 230,400 pixels. Needs 3,136Kbps.
At 2,500Kbps, this is not enough for a blockless picture in high speed scenes in the SVCD. No matter how good the encoder is.
Sorry but the calculations were done incorrectly when the SVCD specs were laid out.
If a standard VCD of 352x240 has a bit rate of 1,150Kbps, then a 352x480 needs at least twice the bit rate to compensate for the double amount of pixels. So 2,300Kbps fits the number correctly.
To have the equivalent visible quality in a 480 x 480 SVCD, you need a bit rate of at least 3136Kbps.
Not the case with standard SVCD specifications.
Do the math.
lower resolution = less sharp
kvcd is gonna be much less sharp and more fuzzy than svcd
finally decided to download the samples....
yep..i was right....didn't even bother to burn it to cd-r cuz looking at it on the computer was already pretty obvious (winDVD)
generally, lower resolution...not sharp or crisp at all, really fuzzy.....also noticed blockiness (especially during panning scenes)
saw some specifics in addition to general fuzziness
1) the city hall sample, the signs in the back were all blurred
2) bugs sample was way too bright...brightness needs to be turned down
compared to SVCD..there is a big difference....the difference may have been LESS noticeable on TV, but watching it on computer at a normal distance away, you can definitely notice a whole world of difference (as stated above)...but i'm sure even on TV there will be a noticeable difference...
kwag, what SVCD settings are you comparing kvcd to? perhaps the SVCDs u're comparing to were not very well done (or done at a very low bitrate)0...this is defintely not gonna compare at all to 480x480, avg.=2200, max=2520, CQ=70, SVCD
...but, for 90 min on a cd, it's pretty impressive...just not comparable to SVCD w/ max per CD of 45 min
Nice clip again Kwag. What CQ quality level did you use on the Matrix clip?
I've been using the same resolution 352x480 but with MPEG2 just to ensure DVD R compatibility once the recorders and DVDR media becomes affordable.
Do you know if using MPEG1 will exclude DVD R compatibility?
Kwag if you want to cram 2+ hrs onto a cdr than thats your perogative but you really should not offer your template to people as advice. I know that this wasn't exactly the answer that objectseven was looking for. For the vast majority of people these settings will not result in acceptable quality, I know they certainly don't for me. I checked out your Matrix sample and it looks subpar to vcd in my opinion. The blocks that occur when the cement and smoke are flying are unmistakable and are very obtrusive. This scene looks flawless in my 480x480 svcd, the difference is like night and day. Also, I don't want to question your honesty but are you sure you didn't use any noise filters on this sample because the image looks awfully soft. 2+hrs on a single cdr looks VERY bad no matter what settings you use. Sorry but its the truth.
objectseven you didn't really give much detail as to what exactly you are trying to do. Have you followed the guides on this site? If you are making a vcd you will 74 mins on a regular cdr and 80 min on an 80 min cdr.
If you are making a svcd then you can use vbr and a bitrate calculator to determine what bitrate settings to use to fit x amount of movie time onto x amount of cdrs. XVCD is not a standard, by definition it just means that it is a format which deviates from the vcd standard. So you could use vbr with xvcd and again use a bitrate calculator to fit more or less of your movie onto each cdr. The choice is yours but if you want good quality on a movie like the Matrix then you will need 3 cdrs. 2 cdrs would be seriously pushing it and 1 cdr is downright stupid.
Originally Posted by adam
main problem i saw was how fuzzy it was...the edges were really blurry, watching it on TV would prolly make it less noticeable (i imagine)....but the low avg. bitrate and resolution isn't gonna cut it compared with SVCD
also, kwag...just wondering why your template uses CQ VBR rather than 2 pass VBR? for low bitrate encodes such as the one you're suggesting, 2 pass VBR is definitely needed, to better allocate wut little bitrate you do give it
also wondering wut motion search accuracy to have on template...some motion scenes were jerky...perhaps the motion search accuracy should be higher so as to better allocate the bitrate
The matrix sample was the only one I downloaded. Im on dial up and can't waste that much time downloading samples. I gave the matrix a try since it applied to this thread and I ran some tests using the template and my own sources. I gave it a fighting chance and I don't feel its acceptable.
That fuzziness you mention is what I was referring to when I said the image looked soft. Again I don't want to question Kwag's honesty but I really think he used noise reduction to prevent pixellation on the Matrix sample, possibly others. If not then there is something seriously wrong with his template because the image should not look that soft, I'd rather have pixellation than images that blurry.
I actually like the resolution Kwag uses. I use 352x480 all the time when I need to squeeze a little extra content onto the disk. Its also compatible on all svcd compliant dvd players, as it conform with the CVD standard which is backward compatible with svcd. The problem I have with this template is obviously the bitrate. Mpeg video simply does not look good at bitrates that low, especially at that higher resolution.
Well, I go with Adam.
I tried the kvcd-template at a complete session of StarTrek-Voyager.
Even with (S)VCD I get better results !
Only when there wasn't much motion, I had good picture. But every quick motion (like in startrek, there's a lot) the picture seemed to go in 'steps' (not in motion).
All my avi-sources are in HQ-DV (720x576) with 48khz audio, so it's not that the source is bad quality.
Usually I encode into VCD and create VCD1.1 or VCD2.0, using the high-quality sources my vcd's are already of high-quality (no blocks! - even the subtitles are great -- and I don't encode using a noise-filter).
I must tell, I don't create (s)vcd's for my pc - if they cannot be played at my standalone dvd-player (pioneer DV-535) they will go straight to the waste-basket.
I also am not creating vcd's to put them onto dvd later. The vcd's I create are forever and therefore must have as much quality as possible (now I have - not with kvcd and all the other x(s)vcd templates!)
The kvcd-template created something that seemed okay at my pc and even played at my standalone player, but the quality at my standalone player 'just' stinks ( ).
The sample did have TemporalSmoother(2,2) via AviSynth.
So I have uploaded new samples that were done without any noise filtering.
Just processed via AviSynth for correct resize.
Here are the scripts.
I encoded a 10 second samples without any noise filter with KVCD template. CQ=74.
And I also encoded a sample as standard SVCD with the default TMPEG template SuperVideoCD(NTSCFilm) template.
Here are the links:
The kvcd sample is 2,033,500 and the svcd sample is 3,502,268.
Both are 10 seconds. Frames 148558 to 148798 of "The Matrix".
Now my question is this:
Is the SVCD quality in these samples really that much higher ( in this particular case ) to the KVCD, as to put "The Matrix" in 3 SVCD?
I don't think so
With the KVCD script above, CQ=74 and TemporalSmoother(2,2), "The Matrix" fits exactly in one 80 minute CD-R.
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.