battle of the CBR/VBR/CQ modes

[dvd2svcd]

[quote="Daagar"]

That seems to be the problem with most of this thread. One camp values quality above all else, another camp values minimizing the number of CDRs used while maintaining decent quality.

No, what we're saying is that a mpeg that is for instance 1200 mb in size will be better in quality in CCE x-VBR than in TMPGEnc's CQ given that the CQ file also is 1200 mb. It's that simple!

[injunpana]

Reliability first: Pick an x-pass method and appropriate bitrates to fit x CDRs. Let it run. You are _guaranteed_ to have it fit _perfectly_ on x CDRs. However, the quality may not be enough.

This is the sentence that I have been waiting for from kdiddy and company. Thank you for kindly stating that scenario. Kdiddy and company never did. Instead, all they said all the time is that due to the super(to the nth power) allocating ability of multipass VBR, the video will come out perfect as if it won't compromise on its allocation due to the limited supply of bits. As if it won't happen that they could choose an average that would turn out exactly 800mb but is still shit to look at. This is really what got my goat , not their contention that multipass VBR is better than CQ.

When i encode in in CQ using Tempgenc I usually hit around the area of 800 mb, under or over. This is because I have been using it for a while. If the file is under but the quality is already near dvd, I don't quibble about the "wasted" mbs since I already have a quality that satisfies me. If I'm feeling assinine about it then I could tweak it by raising the CQ a step or just letting it stay there and raise the max bitrate cap.

If the file size went over 800 mb, I could usually overburn up to around 830 mb with no problem. If it went over that, then I could tweak again the min and max bitrate cap as well as the CQ setting.

With this method I have been able to fit movies almost 3 hours long in 2 cdrs that looked a lot better than standard VCDs and most SVCDs I've seen. If they can claim that CCE does that with their multipass VBR, I really have no quarrel with that. Just stop saying about that "superior allocation ability" as that means anything if the average bitrate is short in the first place.[/b]

[injunpana]

No, what we're saying is that a mpeg that is for instance 1200 mb in size will be better in quality in CCE x-VBR than in TMPGEnc's CQ given that the CQ file also is 1200 mb. It's that simple!

I don't know about that personally but some CQ advocates refutes that and says the opposite. You don't believe them and they don't believe you, it's that simple!

[Daagar]

No, what we're saying is that a mpeg that is for instance 1200 mb in size will be better in quality in CCE x-VBR than in TMPGEnc's CQ given that the CQ file also is 1200 mb. It's that simple!

I agree that is what you're saying, dvd2svcd, based on your previous posts. And since I haven't had a chance to do those kinds of tests myself, I'll defer to your expertise. That didn't seem to be what a lot of others were arguing though.

If it is agreed that we are only talking about comparisons based on the same filesize, this discussion might actually get less confusing. It wasn't clear to me that everyone was agreeing to this premise.

[dvd2svcd]

I don't know about that personally but some CQ advocates refutes that and says the opposite. You don't believe them and they don't believe you, it's that simple!

Those who say opposite are those who never tested CCE VBR, like Banjazzer and yourself. I on the other hand have done so and I don't go about guessing like you obviously do.

[banjazzer]

Encode your file. It may fit on one CD, it may fit on 2 CDs.

Realistically, if we are talking about movies encoded to a high quality, I would add it "may fit on 3 CDs, and it may occasionally fit on 4 CDs". My last batch of CDRs cost less than 20p=30c, so I can live with the extra expense if I need to. 8)

[Daagar]

This is directed at dvd2svcd if he knows, but anyone can chime in:

We agree we are talking about tests done with the same final file size. Great. But now I want to cloud the issue again. Kwag's templates rework the Q. Matrix and the GOP structure to allow better compression than normal. The quantization matrix can be used in CCE, but I haven't yet found a way to use Kwag's modified GOP structure (it is _very_ long, and it seems CCE limits you to the standards).

So now we have a case where it _may_ be possible for CQ to outdo x-pass VBE in the same filesize, because of the compression afforded by the GOP structure. Have you looked into this at all? I'm not saying it is better, as I truly don't know. I would love to hear if others have tested this scenario, however.

This would be a moot point if CCE would allow this odd GOP structure, but unless someone can tell me how to do it, this causes a rift between CQ and VBR comparisons across products.

[banjazzer]

I don't know about that personally but some CQ advocates refutes that and says the opposite. You don't believe them and they don't believe you, it's that simple!

Those who say opposite are those who never tested CCE VBR, like Banjazzer and yourself. I on the other hand have done so and I don't go about guessing like you obviously do.

Can you tell me in which post I actually said that CCE VBR would not be better than TMPGEnc CQ, given the same final filesize?

[dvd2svcd]

I don't know about that personally but some CQ advocates refutes that and says the opposite. You don't believe them and they don't believe you, it's that simple!

Those who say opposite are those who never tested CCE VBR, like Banjazzer and yourself. I on the other hand have done so and I don't go about guessing like you obviously do.

Can you tell me in which post I actually said that CCE VBR would not be better than TMPGEnc CQ, given the same final filesize?

I really don't care what you say. You can come back and argue CQ/VBR when you've done some tests on your own in CCE. To discuss this any further with you is the same as to discuss religion. Luckily MPEG2 encoding can be tested in real life, as opposed to religion. So why don't you do that, or are you so afraid that we are right and you are wrong.?

[dvd2svcd]

This is directed at dvd2svcd if he knows, but anyone can chime in:

We agree we are talking about tests done with the same final file size. Great. But now I want to cloud the issue again. Kwag's templates rework the Q. Matrix and the GOP structure to allow better compression than normal. The quantization matrix can be used in CCE, but I haven't yet found a way to use Kwag's modified GOP structure (it is _very_ long, and it seems CCE limits you to the standards).

So now we have a case where it _may_ be possible for CQ to outdo x-pass VBE in the same filesize, because of the compression afforded by the GOP structure. Have you looked into this at all? I'm not saying it is better, as I truly don't know. I would love to hear if others have tested this scenario, however.

This would be a moot point if CCE would allow this odd GOP structure, but unless someone can tell me how to do it, this causes a rift between CQ and VBR comparisons across products.

You can twist and turn the settings in TMPGEnc all you want using whatever tricks you have up your sleeve. CCE X-Pass VBR will still surpass the optimum of tmpgenc's CQ.

[Kdiddy]

]Yes, the size of the media is fixed. But the number of media is not. I would suggest that arguably most multi-pass exponents have a fixed idea of how many discs they intend using from the outset.

Yes the # is fixed. Ask yourself, when go to do a CQ encode, why do you choose a CQ of 75 as oppose to CQ 98-100? You do a CQ with respect of attaining a satsifactory quality level at a "reasonable" filesize, of which you know filesize fits on X # of disks. You know from the outset that if you lower the CQ setting in TMPG, you quality will get worse right? So why lower it from 98-100? if this is not your reasoning for lower the CQ setting, then what is the reasoning?

TMPG for mpeg2: Could be better, could be worse.

JusT to add, my meaning here is that as a whole it could be better, not that it could be better than CCEs mpeg2.

if I understand you right, you are saying that with CCE the average bitrate will never be too low using its x-pass encoding mode.

When dealing with the same filesize that is correct. Filesize is paramount to this discussion. If we can't agree that sceintifically, in order to make a fair comparision of anything you have eliminate all uncommon X factors, then the discussion is dead. We have to use the same filesize in this comparison simply because we are debating intrinsic nature of the encoding process itself. Or at least I am, the practical/reality nature of this is not really what Im debating here. So if the filesizes are the same, the only factor left to determine quality is allocation of bits.

e I seem to recall that multipass VBR was held as superior to CQ independent of encoder by some, and later if I have time I will check the thread to see.

In theory, yes. Do all encoders reflect that theory, no.

Thinking about it without your answer yet I don't think you should say yes. Okay, supposing you could fit a 140 minute movie in twp cdrs and have an excellent quality. How about if the movie has a director's cut and this made it longer to 170, will CCE still be able to maintain that average without running out of bits?

I always think before I open my mouth, but in this instance, I will defer to Daager's answer because it is exactly what I would have said.

Supposing the average bitrate you set was just about right and worked perfectly on a 140 minute movie you encoded of mostly black and stationary scenes. Will this average bitrate be enough to provide bits for a same length movie but with high action scenes?

The key word in there is "enough". Will it allocate the same # of bits, yes if you used the same average value. Will that allocation be "enough" provide a quality level one could enjoy, thats purely opinion. But keep in mind, we are working on the premise that filesizes are the same in both encoding formats. Will that low action movie set to 72, have the same filesize as the high action movie, no, the high action being bigger in size.
No one has ever argued that a CQ of filesize X, is less in terms of quality than a VBR in filesize of anything less than X. Thats a no brainer, of course CQ would be better here because there are more bits to be ing used. But given the same amount of bits used, x-pass VBR is better in theory (and with CCE).

I'll say it again CCE, makes the same type of CQ measurement on its first pass, the subsequent passes improvement upon the initial measurment. To the "nth power"? no. I don't think that was ever stated, just assumed by you. I know I didnt state it. Is CCE the end all & be all of encoders, no. Personally bitrates below 1400 are poorly done whether mpeg2 or mpeg1. But through its documentation, you can easily tell CCE was intended for DVD video, not low bitrate video.
In the reality of things, when I have to do a encode for my son, whose disney type movies are short & quality is not paramount, I aim for 1 disk. To me CCE and 1 disk encodes just dont work. So I use TMPG mpeg1 option, usually 2-pass, I have done CQ on some, but I havent been able to master what CQ setting produces what filesize, but honestly Im not trying to.
When it comes to me, I usually aim for 2 disks on average length movie regardless of content. 2 disks allows my needed bathroom break. In this instance, CCE x-pass gets used for the exact reasons as I quoted from that website.

[Kdiddy]

wassup with editing post not working?

[banjazzer]

I really don't care what you say. You can come back and argue CQ/VBR when you've done some tests on your own in CCE.

I see. I cannot comment until I have used CCE?

Translation of dvd2svcd's post: I'm taking the ball away unless you play to my rules. 8)

[dvd2svcd]

I really don't care what you say. You can come back and argue CQ/VBR when you've done some tests on your own in CCE.

I see. I cannot comment until I have used CCE?

Translation of dvd2svcd's post: I'm taking the ball away unless you play to my rules. 8)

What has this got to do with my rules? How the hell can you defend anything without doing your own testing. You are bullshitting people here. You have just shown the world yet another example of your infinite stupidity. I do hope that others will try to conduct tests before they start arguing for or against anything. This is the end of the line for me I can't discuss with people like you.

You fit right into this:
Don't argue with fools (aka banjazzer), they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[banjazzer]

Don't argue with fools (aka banjazzer), they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

They will beat you with logic, and the ability to discuss in a rational manner without losing their temper.

[banjazzer]

When dealing with the same filesize that is correct. Filesize is paramount to this discussion. If we can't agree that sceintifically, in order to make a fair comparision of anything you have eliminate all uncommon X factors, then the discussion is dead. We have to use the same filesize in this comparison simply because we are debating intrinsic nature of the encoding process itself. Or at least I am, the practical/reality nature of this is not really what Im debating here. So if the filesizes are the same, the only factor left to determine quality is allocation of bits.

I think this is why this whole discussion is going wrong. I am talking about everyday encoding to mpeg2, with all manner of source material, where we know the length of the source material, but we do not know how it will encode. You appear only to want to argue about encoding where the filesize is determined at the outset. The filesize is never determined at the outset with all my encodes. It is an unknown quantity, and will depend on the source material. CQ encoding with a suitable quality setting takes care of the rest.

[Kdiddy]

The filesize is never determined at the outset with all my encodes. It is an unknown quantity, and will depend on the source material. CQ encoding with a suitable quality setting takes care of the rest.

This is what I have issue with, your filesize is determined before you start. VBR gives the exact filesize, your set your CQ value in terms of a guesstimation. Again, If you were truly NOT concern with your filesize at the start, you would be doing CBR or CQ 100% encodes. Wouldnt supplying the max bitrate your dvd player can handle at SVCD always provide for the best situation of having the lowest possible Q value, thus higher quality? Yes it would. CBR/CQ 100 max bitrate always provide the best quality, the only problem there is the huge filesize you get along with it. The only reason to lower the CQ value in TMPG is to lower your filesize. You can't possibly believe that lowering the quality setting in TMPG would give you better quality do you? I hope not, so surely you see that you lower the value in order to have a "quality" level you can accept at a "reasonable" filesize.

If this is not true, please explain to me why you lower your CQ value from 100 or do not use CBR?

[Martyn1980]

Ive just read the last 6 pages of this post and it hasn't half made me laugh as it not really got any where.

But im am also a lover of CCE's VBR and have got fantastic results from it, i havn't used Tmpegs CQ setting much as i cant stand how long Tmpeg takes to do anything, if CCE says 5 hours it'll ne done in 5 hours.

Im especially annoyed at the people who say filesize doesn't matter and disc are only cheap and it doesn't matter if it ends up on 4 discs, or if you have empty space on the disc, if a 100min movie was encoded on CQ and ended up 2gb then you would need 3 discs but would have loads of empty space on the discs, and im sure a Tmpeg CQ at 2gb would look better than a 1.6gb CCE VBR, but in the end its the discs that we view them on which is important really, not really the filesize.

You dont want empty space on a disc cause that space could be put to good use, no ones gonna argue with me and say a 2gb CQ looks better than a 2.4gb VBR, if its gonna end up on 3 disc you might as well use VBR.

The final filesize and amount of discs is only important if your never gonna put the film on a DVD player, most of my films are 2 disc VBR and i have 43 now if and already it looks like a mess on top of my TV.

Im not gonna say i know more than the CQ people i probably dont, but in the end its all about getting the best quality on the least amount of discs in the least amount of time, CQ is a waste of space if you've got free disc space and its a waste of time if you encode it again at a different Q level to get a bigger or smaller file size.

Feel free to shoot me down

[vitualis]

The filesize is never determined at the outset with all my encodes. It is an unknown quantity, and will depend on the source material. CQ encoding with a suitable quality setting takes care of the rest.

Ah, we get to the heart of the matter.

In fact, if you know what you are doing the file size is always determined at the beginning.

Your encodes should fill the number of CDs which you are willing to use.

You said before that the "number" of CDs is unlimited. This is entirely illogical. The total number is limited. Remember, there is absolutely no benefit (within specs), of anything more than CBR 2500 kbit/s.

Essentially, with 80min media, you get 40min at 2500 kbit/s. Or, you should never use more than 3 discs for anything less than 2 hours. Realistically, you shouldn't be using anymore than 3 discs for any movie.

If you plan your encode, you should be able to anticipate whether you should be using 1, 2 or 3 discs. With X-pass VBR, you can fill those discs to capacity.

Thus, if you plan what you are doing, you can practically always achieve better quality with multipass VBR than CQ.

However, you've missed the argument entirely before it seems. When we are discussing whether CQ or multipass VBR has better quality, we always imply when the filesize is the same. That is same number of bits. In this scenario, it has been described dozens of times why multipass VBR can provide better quality than CQ.

Regards.

[banjazzer]

Again, If you were truly NOT concern with your filesize at the start, you would be doing CBR or CQ 100% encodes. Wouldnt supplying the max bitrate your dvd player can handle at SVCD always provide for the best situation of having the lowest possible Q value, thus higher quality?

Read these words slowly:
I set a quality setting which is acceptable to me. The filesize will be determined by the nature of the material. It is not known to me before the encode.

[banjazzer]

vitualis
I do a few test encodes before the final one. I aim to use most of the disc-space needed to suit my quality setting, but if I don't completely fill every disc I do not lose sleep over it.

My aim throughout has been to counter those who choose to rubbish CQ, pointing out that 2-pass VBR (at least with TMPGEnc) can give a poor result if you choose too low an average bitrate. This is more likely to happen if you are hung up about the number of discs you actually use. I never said multipass VBR was rubbish or was not capable of giving the highest quality results. My aim is not to evangelise - merely to counter misinformation. 8)

[Kdiddy]

I set a quality setting which is acceptable to me.

I see the logic has lost you again. You consider yourself a "quality" above all else person correct? filesize & # disks do not matter to you as you have stated. Again for the "umpteenth" time, if this was truly the case, you would use CBR or CQ 100 instead, for surely those will give be better quality than than a CQ of 72 for example. Please answer this as I have asked it 3 times, and you have yet to do so.

The length of encode time would be the same, so why is it that you feel say a CQ of 72 is more acceptable than a CQ of 100 or max CBR?

Why do any test encodes, when doing a CBR enocde at max possible SVCD bitrate will always give you best possible quality?

[Daagar]

Okay, since this whole argument revolves around doing tests and comparing the difference, I'm attempting to do so. However, I need some guidance from the CCE/x-pass VBR experts to help me match the quality I can get from CQ mode in TMPGEnc.

I have a source that is ~52min in length. I'm most familiar with Kwag's templates, so that is what I use: CQ70, output to 352x480. It utilizes the Andreas 99er SVCD matrix, and a modified GOP structure. (I can achieve the same/better results by changing to CQ 50 and output res 704x480 as well at the same filesize). The bitrate is set to 300min, 2300max.

The result is a great quality 300meg file (both on PC and TV playback)! So this is my target filesize from CCE with x-pass VBR. According to bitrate calculators, I can only have an average of 746kpbs to ensure a 300meg filesize. I did a 3-pass VBR encode with 0/746/2500 for bitrate, image quality 10, no anti-noise. As you might expect, the results weren't all that great (though the file did end up being the right size!). I did patch in the same Q. Matrix, but obviously I can't reconstruct the modified GOP structure used in TMPGEnc.

So, what I need help with is creating a _good quality_ 300meg file from this 52min clip. I'm sure it is my lack of familiarity with CCE, so I'm hoping someone can point out my blunder. I really do want to see equal/better quality from CCE!

[banjazzer]

I see the logic has lost you again. You consider yourself a "quality" above all else person correct? filesize & # disks do not matter to you as you have stated. Again for the "umpteenth" time, if this was truly the case, you would use CBR or CQ 100 instead, for surely those will give be better quality than than a CQ of 72 for example. Please answer this as I have asked it 3 times, and you have yet to do so.

I said that quality is of paramount concern, above filesize. That does not mean I would go for maximum available bitrate all the time. To draw that conclusion you have to make a huge leap in the logic, of which I am sure you are well capable. Aside from not being necessary, it would probably mean huge disc sets. Since I watch on a DVD player it would mean more disc changes than I would personally find acceptable. I could live with the expense, but not the disc changing. It would also mean finding more suitable points to split the movie. It is not inconsistent to want the quality and yet still minimise the number of discs. So I go for a quality setting between 75 and 85, and I find this gives quality acceptable to me on a reasonable quantity of discs.

Now this is the point you do not seem to be able to grasp, so read the following carefully:

I usually do a couple of test encodes of what I hope will be typical sections of the movie, usually starting at the lower end of my acceptable quality range. From this I will get a very rough idea of how many discs I will need. Why do I need to know this? Well, it makes sense to me if it looks like a large part of the last disc will not be used to notch the quality setting up a bit. I don't need to do this, and I don't get hung up if there is still a sizeable chunk of disc unused. Very occasionally, dependent on the material, my predictions can be widely out, but this does not matter unduly, because whatever bits are required will be used.

So why do I see this as preferable to deciding on a number of discs beforehand, thereby maximising the disc usage and optimising the bit distibution by using 2-pass VBR? Because, in certain circumstances with certain material the number of discs I choose may in fact be too few. This may only happen once in a blue moon, but it can happen. You find out about it when the quality you hoped for is not there. Using my method, this can never happen.

Having said that, I do not say 2-pass VBR is rubbish, use CQ. What I say is that those who are proclaiming 2-pass VBR and attempting to rubbish/demean CQ are fundamentally wrong.

A few posts back you wrote:

"TMPG CQ better than TMPG 2-pass VBR: Most likely"
Considering I only have TMPGEnc to encode with, do you not then think it is eminently sensible of me to use what you consider to be the better encoding method for the software I have?

[Martyn1980]

I think i must be crap at using Tmpeg cause your telling me Kwags templates will give you acceptable quality at 300mb for a 52 miniute clip.

Ive never been happy with any of his templates and even his clips i have downloaded, especially the DVD matrix thing he recently done, or maybe im just too fussy, but then again i cant be, because im using an inferior way of encoding to you lot, and i use a DVD player that has played everything i have ever done.

I think i'll go try what you did now and see if i get similar results, i severely doubt that i will get the same results, but i imagine you will just say its my lack of knowledge of using the templates and Tmpeg, so i guess your saying that all those people paying 2 grand for CCE should ask for heir money back and get Tmpeg instead saving $1950.

[Daagar]

Can I ask why you aren't happy with Kwag's samples? (Ie., The Matrix one you refer to?). Yes, I consider that to be quite acceptable quality, especially given the filesize.

The 300meg 52min clip I encoded has quality on par with Kwag's Matrix example, for anyone that wants to take a look.

If you could tell me how to achieve the same or better results using CCE, I'd love to hear it. Same filesize, of course. I'm a CCE newbie, and my first few attempts haven't been able to match Kwag's quality, so I'm looking to learn.

PS: I never said I was in favor of one method over the other. I simply want to know how to get CCE to give me the same results as the Kwag template in the same filesize using x-pass VBR, since everyone agrees that xpass VBR should be giving out higher quality!

[injunpana]

Okay, since this whole argument revolves around doing tests and comparing the difference, I'm attempting to do so. However, I need some guidance from the CCE/x-pass VBR experts to help me match the quality I can get from CQ mode in TMPGEnc.

I have a source that is ~52min in length. I'm most familiar with Kwag's templates, so that is what I use: CQ70, output to 352x480. It utilizes the Andreas 99er SVCD matrix, and a modified GOP structure. (I can achieve the same/better results by changing to CQ 50 and output res 704x480 as well at the same filesize). The bitrate is set to 300min, 2300max.

The result is a great quality 300meg file (both on PC and TV playback)! So this is my target filesize from CCE with x-pass VBR. According to bitrate calculators, I can only have an average of 746kpbs to ensure a 300meg filesize. I did a 3-pass VBR encode with 0/746/2500 for bitrate, image quality 10, no anti-noise. As you might expect, the results weren't all that great (though the file did end up being the right size!). I did patch in the same Q. Matrix, but obviously I can't reconstruct the modified GOP structure used in TMPGEnc.

So, what I need help with is creating a _good quality_ 300meg file from this 52min clip. I'm sure it is my lack of familiarity with CCE, so I'm hoping someone can point out my blunder. I really do want to see equal/better quality from CCE!

Daagar, thank you for attempting this test. This is what I've wanted to do but I don't have CCE. I also wanted to compare the kwag CQ template (especially the 704 x 480 1cd template) as against the best CCE tweak and modification on a same file size clip. Obviously, you have to ask the CCE and VBR experts their best tweaks and settings. Maybe you have to tell them what particular movie you want to work on so that they can give you the right settings/tweaks. C'mon CCE and VBR advocates, give Daagar your CCE settings. Or better, you can do the test along with him and ask him what his settings too in his CQ encode.

This is fair, ain't it? Same file size limitation, and using the best settings for each method.

[Martyn1980]

I never said there was anything wrong with the samples, but acceptable quality isn't enough for me,and i dont like someone who is willing to drop a 384k or sometimes a 448k AC3 file down to a 128mp2, but that has nothing to do with this.

I admit that the sample is good quality, but it looks nowhere near like the original, im gonna run a few tests now to see what results i get, i have Tmpeg and CCE and all the Kwag templates, so i will try most of them and see what i get, Im going to encode a trailer as i dont have the time to watch Tmpeg take all day, has anyone any objections.

Plus i doubt you had the same quality as that Matrix sample, (i mean the DVD one with Carrie-Ann Moss in the phone box)because what your saying is you can get over 2 hours on one disc at that quality, damn it your a genius, and you should be doing this for a living.

[Daagar]

Odd, I find it looks pretty close to the original, but maybe my equipment simply sucks

Yes, encoding a trailer is just fine. In fact, what would be great is if we could all play around with the same trailer (ie., find a high-quality .avi trailer, and then encode it via our various methods).

And yes, I get the same quality as the Matrix sample on everything I have attempted. Kwag encoded the entire Matrix movie and was able to fit it on a _single_ 80min CD-R at the same quality as the sample he provides on his page (credits were removed I believe). The nice thing about using the Kwag templates is that it is generally not necessary to do any additional tweaking (unless the file is too small/large, and you want to bump the CQ to adjust). So yes, 2 hours fits on a single disc at that quality. Credit goes to Kwag, not me. Now I want to know the settings necessary to achieve the same result in CCE.

[injunpana]

Plus i doubt you had the same quality as that Matrix sample, (i mean the DVD one with Carrie-Ann Moss in the phone box)because what your saying is you can get over 2 hours on one disc at that quality, damn it your a genius, and you should be doing this for a living

Martyn1980, that's what the kwag templates has been all about, 120 minute movie of equal/better quality than an SVCD in one 800mb cdr.
It has never been, "kwag template - the best quality in mpeg1 encoding". Read the main page of his site and the latter has never been claimed so.