CVD:What is it,how to test it & what to expect!

[CUBANAZO]

I wish it was that simple. I early mentioned a problem I was having encoding a scene where I have a lot of moving water...I'm still working on it but my results are nowhere near VHS quality yet.....any Ideas?.....any TMPGEnc templates for SVCD's or CVD's?

Thx in advance

[brucer]

SatStorm, I didn't realize you were the gatekeeper of the CVD standard.

Just to bring you up to speed - I have been making SVCD for about a year now, and have recently purchased a DVD burner. This forum or burning isn't my life's work, I just want to know if you had a DVD burner would you even bother with CVD as CVD seems to be touted as the upward compatible option so you won't have to re-encode when you go to DVD. What if you are already there.

On another note - I read the forums - I'm not posting a stupid question here and if we can't post questions to the forum, what's the point of a forum.

If this isn't the right forum for the question that's one thing but don't tell me what I'm ready to learn and not learn. Is this a forum or a dictatorship?

[vhelp]

dubanazo,

what VHS movie are you trying to encode?
Also, what settings are you using in your encoding?

I've done many VHS movies - - much cheaper than DVD movies.
I might just have the same movie, as I have a stock pile of VHS
movies.

-vhelp

[kinneera]

I just want to know if you had a DVD burner would you even bother with CVD as CVD seems to be touted as the upward compatible option so you won't have to re-encode when you go to DVD. What if you are already there?

I would say that's just a question of priority. I tend to think of it as sort analogous to SP vs. LP or EP modes on a VHS tape. You can fit about 2 standard length movies on a 1-sided DVD at about SVHS quality using CVD specs.

[SatStorm]

Exactly,
you see, when your source come from VHS or SVHS or some DVB transmissions or most download movies, you don't earn something in quality by going more than 1/2 D1 resolution. You can get better quality with more bitrate, but that is another point. (my CVDs are almost always -X- for max bitrate, sometimes up to 3500kb/s!). Also, don't think that all the people in this world are quality freaks! Look mp3s for example... Same story: Some people want top quality and some low filesize with acceptable quality. The same is with 1/2 D1 and D1 resolutions and the same is with LP and SP at VCRs...

I don't force anyone use CVD. I simply inform people for one more alternative... A practical one.

@Brucer
Because of my job, which is pretty close to my hobbies, I was able (and still am) to test a lot of hardware, software, Combos, solutions. That's how I was able to have some conclusions for the CVD subject. Why you think that CVD is my life's work? Because I publish some infos for the subject and answer the questions? It don't take me more than half hour a day to do it and I feel really fine simply knowing that I help some people in the world with this! I also know good blind typing, so that shorts the time much....
Most of the times, I reading forums ( I have internet in my job and somehow, reading forums is a part of it..). And because I do that a lot, I have a need to give back when I can. Easy like that!
One more thing for CVD, is that is an advance subject. It is not for newbies. I can't understand why people want to go straight for advance methods, when they don't understand what there doing and don't know the basics. I am not follow this logic. You have to start low to end up high. You have to learn for VCD, SVCD, DVD and then for CVD . If you don't follow that order, you will end up with wrong conclusions. I want to prevent this! I don't have the time or the will (I admit it) to explain things to newbies. If I had that gift, I would go for teaching. I can only help advance users, 'cause they do know the basics, so I simply gonna post a sentence and they will understand (or try to).
What drives me crazy, because I have a typical mediteranean temper, is when people tease without a reason. It is childish. Also, when they publish faulty infos only to mess up...
Finally, about questions, there are sections in this forum: Newbies and Advance. Why you think those sections exist?

@ Baker: My friend, your guide is excellent for DVD backup. It an excellent guide for that specific job!

[CUBANAZO]

@Vhelp:

I downloaded your CVD sample and it looks great on my 36" Sony Wega. I wish someday I could come up with that excellent quality....anyway.....I'm trying to backup all my home movies taken with a Sony CCD-TRV37 (Video 8, NTSC)....I'm capturing straight from the camcorder to my PC. I also would like to backup VHS movies as well...but that's another story....my problem is that I'm a "quality freak" and I'm not happy at all whit what I've been getting so far. I need more info on those detail settings that nobody mentions ever....they are a ton of things in TMPGEnc to adjust and it's getting complicated....any advise of a good template.....any ideas about what resolution should I be using to capture?.....What can I expect from this Camcorder?….

Thx in advance

[onerag9]

I've been having a problem with the CVD guide by Baker. I encoded the "Beverly Hills Cop" DVD into CVD, and then tried to import my three CVD clips into DVDit PE. It didn't work. The mouse pointer turned to an hourglass for a moment, and then back to the pointer - and my video clips still did not appear in the menu. I tried several times to no avail.
I then tried to import the clips into SpruceUp. At 18% completion, the clips stopped importing.
Does anyone have any suggestions? Also, can i set DVD2SVCD up to NOT split the CVD stream into three parts?

[W_Eagle]

Hello pal.
Being a technical person, what you said about the better quality of CVD sounds right to me, though I ddidn't manage yet testing it.
As for burning CVD in anticipation for DVD burners becoming afordable, well, technology is moving ahead in another direction.
They started manufecturind stand alone DVD players that can play also MPEG-4 and AVI videos. It looks to me that AVI compatible stand alon DVD players will be on the market much before DVD burners will become afordable.
See link for the new DVD players:
http://www.chipcenter.com/analog/products_700-799/prod795.htm

Be well.

[SatStorm]

@W_Eagle
Hi, welcome to the forum!
Yes, you right, mpeg 4 and mpeg 7 are the way to go. I am a great fan of XviD you know!
When standalones support those formats, then I'll do the switch!
The good news is, that CVD and a good XviD (both suppoprt interlace), as a filesize ain't that different if you use the same resolution. So, after all, is not that useless to convert to mpeg 2 now...
It is better than do it on VCD or keep it on VHS!
I hope FDD (that disc format from Israel, right sefy?) and mpeg 4 gonna be the future! Just imagine how many things you can grabb and fit on a disc!

[vhelp]

afternoon cubanzazo and the rest.

Sound good that it looked good on your 36" screen, but I don't
know what a Wega is. Flat screen or HDVT? or regular?

It's hard to lay out details, cause most are just hunches I
feed off of based on my experiences. All templates are good,
but you have to know how to pick the one that will work in
YOUR given encoding project. But still, it's not the template
that will give you the quality!! You MUST believe this...
You MUST believe this!! It's partly to do with the source.
* it's quality
* was it pre-processed
* was it re-encoded before airing
* noisy
* blocky
all this BEFORE you even captured it.

Then, you have to take into consideration how YOU captured it
and encode it, did you drop frames in it, etc.

If you're going the firewire route, don't assume that you are
or should have DVD quality. You've missed it if you think that
if you captured via analog or firewire that you've now got a
DVD quality source. That is so not true. You are not using
Hollywood style equipment. So, forget about DVD quality when
you go this route. Just forget about it! get it out of your
head that 720x480 is DVD quality. Cause it's not. The sooner
you yield to this, the better and closer you will be to your
goal.

Also, please dont fool yourself into believing that you can take
a capture and make it even BETTER than the source you got it
from. So foolish! ...how people can actaully beleive this
notion. "I capture something, and made it look even better"
Applying filters isn't going to make it look better, just cover
up (in some cases) flows, etc. Always remember this, that
whatever you capture (source'wise) it will always be, in most
cases less than the source materals, but in some cases, and of
course, based on your level of experience, will look at close
or good as the original. But, never, never better.

Also, remember this, that all capture devices (whatever they may
be) add in some noise to the capture/transfered source. And, as
such, you have to minimise it as much as possible. I use some
filters in my encoding, but i use them very sparingly. I never
go above the defaults that come up automatically when you load
them in.

Resoluiton:
Hmmmm, I've said this time, and time again, use 352x480, period!
Anything over, and you are just plain taxing your system AND
your ability for the best and as flowless encoding you can expect.

Believe it or not, whatever camcorder you use, be it a
* DV
* Digital 8
your final quality will depending on many, many factors, beyond
this so little space I have available here to give you. You must
do as many test clip capturing/encoding as you can.

VHS Movies:
The more you've watched these same tapes, the less your chances of
as good an encode you will get for each. Never waist a good VHS
tape on a bunch of testing. Buy a scratch tape and do all your
testing based on this tape. Don't through away your chances on
your actual source materials. Go out, and buy a good commericial
tape and run all your test captures on this tape. Once you're
perfected your skills, then start using your tapes on this. But,
if you can, run your tapes through your so called pefect method
or process once, and tuck them away for later's new process.

DV doesn't record commercial VHS moves due to MV. So, don't go
waisting it on those magical PASS-THROUGHs you see/read about
unless you are SURE, you have perfected your method of quality!

Since you didn't give me any VHS movie name(s) you were having
trouble with, I can't show you any good VHS sample clips for you
to D/L. Maybe you will change your mind, and give some names
in your next post, else I can't share any sample clps based on
my knowledge for you to "compare" up against. Anyways. . .

Do many test clips. Many. Wishing for someone magical template
is not going to help here or there. you have to run many trail
and errors in order to reach your goal. Not everyone has the
same setup as you do. I doubt that anyone has my same setup.
* ESC K7S5A / XP 1700+ / 256 DDR PC2100 RAM
* OS: Windows 98 (not SE)
* software drivers/and combo of versions installed
* ATI-TV Wonder (ATW)
* plus the other many i/o cards and set is same arrangements
* capturing the same way and w/ same codec, etc.
* using same software and w/ same settings as I use in each project
* tmpg and version w/ same settings
* filtering system
* frameserving and/or combo of frameserving/filterng, etc.
* etc.
* in short, technique!!

Well, let me stop here.
-vhelp

[CUBANAZO]

@Vhelp:

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. It's always good to see how somebody takes some time to help others. Just for the records: my 36" TV Wega is Flat screen but not HDTV.
I will keep on trying as you recommended. It’s the only way to learn and I’m aware of that.
Just one more question: I’m not dropping any frames using PIC Mpeg (Max Quality: 20) or Uncompressed Avi…but What do you recommend for capturing?….is it worth to go the uncompressed way?…..it does not seem to matter to much when I encode…..and to manipulate those huge Avi’s takes forever…. My source is a Sony Video 8 Camcorder, I capture using an ATI TV Wonder VE and iuVCR (352x480).

thx one more time.....

[Nelson37]

I must disagree with the assertion that CVD is not for newbies. The issues involved are the same for both, CVD is no more or less "easy" than SVCD. It is a good format that is DVD compatible and represents a good compromise in resolution, but other than that resolution change there is no real difference with SVCD. I use exactly the same methods for both, there is no "magic", or any greater degree of difficulty. There is a learning process for ANY video processing, I agree, and newbies have a lot of testing and reading to do; but they might as well start with their desired format.

While I'm at it, I also assert that it IS possible to create an encoded movie that looks BETTER than the source. Capture from non-digital cable a cartoon such as Buzz Lightyear, run it thru TMPGenc with the noise filters set about 80%. For an EXTREMELY SLIGHT and to most people unoticable loss of fine detail (of which there is not much, anyway), you get a greatly improved image - the posterization effect works FOR you. Has some image (mostly noise) been lost, yes. Does it look better? Also yes.

[vhelp]

cubanazo,

you're lucky you got iuVCR working. suffice-it-to-say, this raved
about app DOESN'T work on my windows 98, even though I have the WDM
driver properly installed for my i/O Magic PC PVR card on my
2nd pc. ben trying to give it a go, but NO go! he, he...

>> Just one more question: I’m not dropping any frames using PIC Mpeg
>> (Max Quality: 20) or Uncompressed Avi but What do you recommend for
>> capturing?.is it worth to go the uncompressed way?..it does not seem
>> to matter to much when I encode..and to manipulate those huge Avi’s
>> takes forever. My source is a Sony Video 8 Camcorder, I capture using
>> an ATI TV Wonder VE and iuVCR (352x480).

Anyays, as far as which codec to use, use whatever works BEST in your
given setup. If PIC works w/ least amount of framedrops, use it.
If huffy, then use it, or both or combo of others, but whichever one
give you least framedrop, that's the one I'd most likely use, however.
if 100% quality is what you're after, and capping via un-compressesion
gives you minor framedrops or as much or as less, then maybe the 96% quality
of those prev.ly used codecs, ie, huffy, PIC, etc. might not be what you
want to use. But, weather it's Huffy or un-compressed, and depending on
the "quality" of the source material to be captured, both will look
pretty much the same, but usually when the "quality" is very good. You
may notice a slight difference w/ Huffy vs. un-compressed. The problem
with un-compressed is the it's almost double the size what Huffy would
require. And, if you're contious about HD space, then Huffy is the way
to go!! In most cases, you WONT notice any difference in reduction of quality,
...even if I can noticed it, for most people, they wont!
Ok, so, based on the above, I would say to continue using PIC or Huffy.
But, just be sure you source is good qualtiy if you can - - personally,
I would go with Huffy, as PIC can be slightly block or chunky (I can't
explain it) but that's how I've seen it when I ran it through my battery
of tests. Be aware, that many people prefer the PIC, and for many reasons.
But, when you make tests, please use the same source materal. Don't try
something else but with a different codec. Use the same source. Another
reason why I prefer to use the miniDV route. Because I can just RW the
tape back to same spot and try w/ another codec, or whatever battery of
tests I happen to be running. You can't do that w/ a PASS-THROUGH though.
ie, if your source is Satalite/Cable for instance. Oh, sorry if I confused
you. I my my ATW to capture off my DV cam (ZR-10) I don't firewire it
to my hd. Sufice-it-to-say, there IS a quality loss, even w/ this route.
So, YES, I capture from my miniDV tapes via analog. The BEST!!

So, how do you judge your material as good quality? This takes time. Sonner
or later, you learn to "feel" your way around source materials, and make
decisions based on such, as to which route would be best to process it
into a VCD/SVCD, etc.
The quicky way out or around all this, is to just buy those DVD units
and create a quick DVD disk, but then you have to have lots of monies, as
those disks, at best to date, are $3 bucks a peice. I wouldn't want to
waist a good movie on just ONE disk, which is almost the cost of a DVD.
Sooner or later, you'll start wishing you had build up the knowledge of
how to utulitze the various ways/methods of encoding video at reduced
bitrate per CD, vs. DVD. Hope I'm making sense of this to you all.
For me, if I had a DVD writer [almost bought one, but got confused, he, he..]
and w/ my knowledge, I'd be able to put a number of 1 hour TV shows on it,
vs. putting just ONE on these disks, at 5000 or higher bitrate. IT's just
a waist. I could go on, but I'll stop here.

>> takes forever. My source is a Sony Video 8 Camcorder, I capture using
>> an ATI TV Wonder VE and iuVCR (352x480).
Yes, it takes for ever sometimes, pending on your system speed.
If I understand correctly, the ATW VE requires WDM drivers and MUST be used
in a windows 98SE or higher version of windows. I have the OLD version
of the ATW, w/out the VE of course. This card came with the VFW drivers.
I got it about 2 years ago. Still, I wish I could give iuVCR a go on my
2nd pc, w/my i/o Magic card, but you can't have everything, he he...

Oh, and one more thing, if you DO plan on using the un-compressed route,
be prepared to have 40g free space, well, at least if you're capping at
720x480, you'll need 40g. You didn't say what res, so I'm assuming you
are trying to cap at highest. But, really, all you need is 352x480, and
maybe 30g for a 1 hour, IF you're usng the un-compressed route, else DO
use the Huffy, and cap at 352x480. You'll be able to cap a 1 hour at
~12gigs harddrive space.

Nelson37,
I still disagree w/ you on CVD for newbies.
It seems that every time someone comes out w/ a new version of an encode,
EVERYBODY heads on over (jumping over what they are trying to master, ie
VCD) and givng the NEW format a go. Then, they run into trouble. Usually,
LOTs of it. Then, this FORUM is flooded w/ Help, can't get CVD working...
"Help, can't get kvcd working..." ..."can't get audio sync'd" ..."can't
get video right size" ..."what's the best BITRATE setting, ...for?" "what's
the difference between?..." "...which is better VCD/CVD/KVCD/DVD" ..."what
do YOU recommend?" ..."it DOESN'T work!" ..."It's just another failed
attempt at another format...", bla, bla, bla.
The above is just a handful of what happens when we stear a newbie into
yet ANOTHER direction, only to confuse even more. But, wait, this person
was just learning VCD... and now, before they could figure it out, and
when NEW formats come into play, and they could, based on their previous
experience, figure the answer to their potential questions later, answer
their own questions, you got them all twisted into another format... don't
worry, you can master it. Don't worry, it's for anyone. this NEW format
is for ALL who asks for it. Well, yes, it is for ALL. But, for the
newbies, we SHOULD be guiding them to the begining first, so they have
a working knowledge, etc. Well, that's how I see it. Yes, there's
nothing stopping ANYBODY from wanting to learn an NEW format. NOTHING.
But, to confuse a newbie w/ a new format before they could finish learning
their previous format is only making the learning process that much more
difficult. Yes, CVD (no bolds) is easy. Just two or so changes and you
have a slighetly different format, ie, resolution; bitrate; audio
But, I believe that the two major problems that cause this format to fail
on some peoples dvd players is the resolution and/or the audio.
Not every DVD player will support this unusuall setting(s)

The above paragraph is my argument as to why we shouldn't be miss-guding
beginners (aka newbies) to a NEW format soo quickly before they had a
chance to learn the format that they were just working on, and learning.
consiquently, building up an sense or ability to feel a video out before
an encoding project even begins. Just looking at a video, I can tell
you if this or that process is right or will cause problems. No, I'm not
talking about being a magician, just having a "sense" for video judging.

Well, that's about it for now.
...I'm back to my tests. later.
-vhelp

[onerag9]

I followed Baker's guide to encode to CVD, then attempted to author a CVD stream as a DVD using Ulead DVD Movie Factory. When the program began building the VIDEO_TS folder, i got the error message "The number of video frames in a GOP is not valid for DVD." I also tried to author with DVDit PE and received a similar error message. Can anyone help me out with this?

[Arnnie]

Did you set a limit on the "MAX number of frames in a GOP" value in TMPGEnc? If indeed that is the encoder you are using....

From previously posted advice by SatStorm:

NTSC has a limit of 15 and PAL 18.

I also believe the GOP structure is important for DVD compliancy.

Ensure the following settings are made: (I=1, P=4, B=2) and a header sequence left as the default = 1.

Let me know how things pan out, I am most interested.

Arnnie

[HaZee]

Did you set a limit on the "MAX number of frames in a GOP" value in TMPGEnc? If indeed that is the encoder you are using....

From previously posted advice by SatStorm:

NTSC has a limit of 15 and PAL 18.

How can I set this value in TMPGEnc for PAL (= 18 ) ???

[baker]

If u are getting a gop error make sure you click close gops in CCE

Baker

[Tony Yip]

In CCE, for the GOP sequence, how do you set it so that the max frames in a GOP is 15 for NTSC?

I notice a M and N/M option which are defaulted to 3 and 5 respectively
which is what I have used for my DVD rips using DVD2SVCD.

Are these settings a problem if I want to author to a DVD-R in the future?

[Nelson37]

Just a correction, CVD is OLDER than SVCD, it is not NEW.

[Xesdeeni]

SatStorm,

First, let me say that I appreciate all the work that you (and many others) have put into these guides. Nitpicking them probably does nothing to encourage you to do more, but please understand that I only want to try to be accurate in these most useful tools, and make sure that people who use them get the best they can out of their time and effort.

That said, I want to disagree with some of your comments regarding VHS resoltion. You state that "The resolution of 352 X 576/480 also happens to be the official SVHS resolution." You go on to say that "There is no way to grabb from any analogue source (including TV broadcasts) and with the use of "S-Video in" to get a usefull resolution beyond 384 X 576/480." I don't really agree with either point, and I'll try to explain both theory and practice below.

Theory

The issue is that analog devices are limited by their frequency bandwidth. For video, this is often measured by displaying a set of vertical black and white lines that get progressively finer and determining where the lines can no longer be distinguished. This is the oft-quoted "lines of resolution," and it seems natural to take this value and compare it to digital resolutions. But the comparison is not quite accurate.

One way to see the subtle difference is to approach this from the other direction: Let's say that you have a 1/2 DVD-resolution device. You could say that it supports 352 pixels per line. Since lines of resolution are normalized to a square display, and a television is (normally) a 4:3 device, that represents 3/4 * 352 or 264 lines of resolution. And indeed, if you took a paint program and created an image that had alternating black and white dots, you'd achieve the 264 lines of resolution.

However, imagine if those pixels were shifted exactly one half pixel. Now what happens? Well, you can't do that in the digital domain without changing the resolution. In this case you might convert the image to 720 pixels per line, shift the vertical lines, and then convert the results back. But no matter what technique you use, you will not be able to communicate that shift.

If you replicate and then decimate, you won't have moved the lines at all. If you interpolate up and then interpolate back down, you will get a basically gray image, having lost the lines themselves in the process.

This is because the pixel unit is spatially absolute. You can't move a fraction of a pixel in the digital realm. Such a shift cannot be communicated.

But there is no such limit in the analog world. And for an analog video transmission, the equivalent shift would actually be communicated over the air. Regardless of the bandwidth, the frequency's phase would communicate the movement of the lines.

What this means when comparing analog and digital resolutions, is that it's not as straightforward as you might think. Even over-the-air video has more information in it than you might think by looking at the numbers.

NTSC (in North America) uses about 4MHz for the luminance information of the image. That should mean that you can have 8 million transitions from white to black or black to white per second. Since there are about 30 frames per second, with 525 lines per frame, that means about 507 of these transitions can occur per line. Only about 75% of a line is actually used, so this means we should be able to see about 367 transitions per line. (For lines of resolution, which again, is normalized to a square display, so for our 4:3 TV, we would have have 3/4 * 367 or about 275 lines of resolution.)

However, even though those transitions can't be more than 1/367 of a (visible) line apart, they don't have to be on a 1/367 of a line boundary. So equating this resolution to 367 pixels per line isn't quite accurate.

Another way of looking at this is to picture a solid colored circle on the screen. One one line, the right edge is at a particular position. At the line above, this edge is shifted to the left or right, and it could be by less than the width of the rated lines of resolution. In the case of a digital image, that shift would either be lost completely (point sampling), or simulated with natural anti-aliasing (filtered sampling). But on an analog broadcast, that edge position would actually show as intended.

I hope you can see that the theory shows that you can actually get quite a bit more out of an analog signal that you would at first think. And of course SVHS has considerably more bandwidth available than over-the-air TV.

Practice

Now for the practice. I have some old video footage that was taped on VHS tape, at the 6-hour speed over 10 years ago. I captured the video at 720 x 480 (through a miniDV camcorder) and converted it to 352 x 480 (using several types of scaling from decimation to cubic interpolation) to put on an xSVCD (or CVD) for exactly the reason you mention in your guide [so that later (tomorrow actually], when I get my DVD burner, I can just copy the video over without re-encoding]. As a test, I also burned using 720 x 480.

Even from this extremely crummy, old source, on my 35" TV, you could definitely see the difference between the resolution of the 352 vs. the 720. It was very obvious. It turns out that I could also see a significant difference between the 352 and a 480 test. But I couldn't really see a difference between the 480 and 720. However, this last comparison may not have been conclusive, since I noticed that my TV only has about 480 RGB phosphors across the screen, so anything above that probably begins to be invisible.

All of that in the hopes of convincing you, and others, that putting your old VHS tapes on DVD at 720 x 480 isn't necessarily a complete waste. Of course, this means more data, and that can mean more MPEG artifacts at the same data rate, or a higher data rate to keep the same quality. So in the case of one of my old tapes I'm transfering to DVD, a 3-hour football game, I'll sacrifice the resolution as a trade-off for the MPEG compression artifacts (which bug me lots more) so I can use a lower bitrate and fit the whole thing onto one DVD .

Xesdeeni

[SatStorm]

Hi,
Basicly, about VHS and SVHS, I just adapt what JVC say for the subject. I read a couple of things about it, just to know what they talking about, and take them as is. So, if JVC (the inventor of VHS and SVHS) state that VHS is 352 X 288 and SVHS is 352 X 576, I don't have to disagree with them...
And if philips state VCD is near VHS quality, I don't have to disagree also.
So, there is nothing to convincing me for this subject! I follow the "official" way. And you read, I use --- " " -----, which means that I don't aggree and I don't disagree with this. It is what they say, I just repost it...

About S-Video, I edit a little the FAQ, just to clerify it better. Don't forget how difficult this is me, 'cause my english ain't the best possible.
The S-Video, is capable in ideal situations to carry the whole CCIR info. But, in practice, you wont use S-Video to grabb analogue a DVD, which is the only full CCIR-601 D1 source. You gonna rip it. Also, if you use it with digital cable and satellite, you gonna have a 720 X 576 picture from an anamorphic source, which could be very lower, like 352 X 576... So, it is a fake capture. Don't mention that there are ways to grabb the transmission as is....
You end up with SVHS and DV. With DV you have other ways to bring the info to the PC, much better analogue grabbing. So, we forget S-Video for DV.
So, you end up with SVHS.
Now, if JVC say that SVHS is 352 X 576/480 (well, not exactly that: They say that from the 720 horizontal dots of a line, only the 384 are usefull), why we see better picture with 720 X 576/480? They are many reasons for this.
One reason, easy to understand, is how capable is a standalone to re-produce with the pan and scan method the best possible way a 1/2 D1 source. It is the decoding part.
One other reason, is how you encode a SVHS source and with what you encode it.
The mpeg encoders ain't perfect, nor the codecs we use. To get the 100% of it, you need pro equipment and pro source. That ain't easy for home users, like us.
But, there is a way: You grabb at higher resolutions and encode with higher bitrates. That way you get 100% of the standard plus non needed more. This non needed more, is harmless. That way looks so good... You made it like the profs! But it is fake...
CVD is a cut of the edge solution for many reasons. It is not easy to make it good and look how it has to. It is much easier the way you say. Well, as I said to my FAQ, if someone finds that xSVCDs @ higher resolutions/ bitrates suits him more, then don't use such solutions like CVD.
It is possible to make CVD look identical SVHS, but ain't easy to do it.
It is possible to connect to internet with a ZX Spectrum 128 also, but who do this and why to do this?
Well, as I said many times, for the fun to do it!

CVD and other x formats, are for those who want to succeed the hard way things, which is much easier to do with other wellknown solutions. Why people want to do that? I explain it also in my CVD Faq. For the fun to do it!

That is why I respect x formats like Kwag's KVCD or Sefy's SxVCD. They make things the hard way (KVCD) or the clever way (SxVCD). They give good alternatives to play for. There are ideas and methods, good to share there.
CVD happens to be one more alternative for the enthusiasts. A good one. Not the best one, but a fair one. It is well to know it, even if we don't have to use it never.
After all, we all know the BEST way for mpeg encoding: DVD @ 720 X 576/480 @ 6000average for ANYTHING. That way anything looks amazing. Why we don't do it? Because it has no fun!

Again, if QUALITY is what you want, then go DVD, xSVCD, miniDVD with CCE and avisynt
For all the others, there are great alternatives to play for: CVD, KVCD, CVCD, SxVCD, SeVCD, LP SVCD, D2 DVD, D4 DVD...

A final word: Yourself, used a trick to get the SVHS/VHS to you PC. You didn't grabb it dirrect with the use Video. That way it is well knonw. But has nothing to do with grabbing. With direct grabbing, you use cables, you have card limitations, codex limitations,etc. All those things, loose quality. Your trick, ain't use nothing from this. So, yes, that way it is possible to have MORE from a VHS/SVHS source. But, that way ain't for anyone...
Needs special equipment. A DV camera.
This article you reading now is not for such situations. It is for mainstream NON US users basicly... It is PAL related.
In my country, I have to work 3 months to get a decent DV camera like yours. So, you see, this is not mainstream for me. Not for south europe...

Because you know very good your subject, it is better to post a good article like: How to take more from a VHS/SVHS source, with the use of a DV camera and a PC.
More people gonna read it that way...

[W_Eagle]

Hello pals,

After doing a lot of reading on the subject and some experiments, my conclusion is that CVD is the format I'm going to use for archiving my videos.

In my case, I capture TV shows and movies from a local satellite multichannel broadcast. The satellite movies, seen on my 29" TV (PAL) and heard on my sophisticated home theater sound system, looks and sounds good to me - as far as Dolbi Prologic can go. AC3 can be obtained only from DVDs. I capture using my ATI AIW card, VirtualDub and its timer, PicVideo Motion JPEG at quality 18 (having only about 20GB spare for capturing). The AVI files captured look and sound good to me. My aim is to archive those movies on CDs, with as little quality loss and on no more than 2 CDs per feature movie (90 to 130 minutes).

Here is why VCD works for me. There are no free meals. The consideration is quality versus file size. Limiting feature movies to 2 CDs each, the choice is basically between SVCD and CVD. Having the 2 best tools available for decoding, CCE and TMPGEnc 2.6 pro, for a given movie length, SVCD will give better horizontal pixel resolution, while CVD will give less blockiness. On my Toshiba 29" TV set I don't notice any difference between 480 and 352 horizontal resolution. When there is blockiness, it is very much apparent to the eyes and quite disturbing.

Thus, CVD is my choice.

Thank you SatStorm and VCD Help for making this information available.

Be Blessed.

[HOTLINE]

Hello, I use DVDx 2.0 and i only take the following settings:
1. 352 x 567
2. CBR 2520
3. FPU quality
4. P4 optimizing for iDtc
5. forcing 48 hz to 44 hz
PROBLEM: DVDx refuses 48 so i take 44 => ok ? but anyway, i go further without any prob ?!
then, i only take DVDit and i create a project with two separate film CVD.
THAT's all ! I'm very happy ...
about 2,2 gb for one 2,3 for the other one.
the output is REALLY good and the sound, too ?!
I do not have any problem;
USING DVD+R from DVD+RW228 from PHILIPS: a good one.
a big problem: i do not found any DVD+R media anymore !!!
it is completely stupid ... any ideas from Brussels ?

[W_Eagle]

a big problem: i do not found any DVD+R media anymore !!!
it is completely stupid ... any ideas from Brussels ?

Well, I don't know about Brussels, but if you'll come here, to Israel, though you may be bombed, you'll have no problem finding DVD Media. Mucho Dinero, though.

Take care,

[ratt794]

Update
Now, it is a perfect opportunity to clarify a myth here: There is no way to grabb from any analogue source (including TV broadcasts) and with the use of "S-Video in" to get a usefull resolution beyond 384 X 576/480.

THIS IS ABSOUTELY FALSE. YOU CAN GET HIGHER RESOLUTIONS FROM ANALOG INPUTS - ESPECIALLY S-VIDEO.

Reason:
NTSC video has a Y Component bandwidth of 4.2 MHz (Composite)
S-Video's Y Bandwidth is NOT limited and typically exceeds 7MHz or more.

Using the Nyquist Sampling law the effecive Bandwith of 352 horizontal samples is only 2.3 Mhz or so - far less than the 4.2 Mhz composite or 7 MHz S-Video can deliver. The 480 lines are irrelavent here because the bandwith is determined by the horizontal sample rate. 352x480 Video is equal to VHS tape in terms of resolution / Quality.

To further clarify:
480 Horizontal samples yeilds 3.2 MHz Bandwidth (NTSC)
640 Horizontal samples yeilds 4.2 MHz Bandwidth (NTSC)
720 Horizontal samples yeilds 4.8 MHz Bandwidth (NTSC)
PAL bandwidths are different but the relationship is the same.

I have done Analog Captures at higher resolutions from both Composite and S-Video and THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE between 352x480 and 720x480.

These are the facts - to post anything else is simply confusing people and totally misleading.

[SatStorm]

OK Mister...
Why you don't sit down and write a nice and informative article about your knowledge in resolutions?
What about: "How to get more from your S-Video in Studio enviroment"

Because with HOME equipment, it is really hard to go straight more than 384 X 576/480. Theory and praxis are 2 different things.
Read my update for the subject, it might help you understand...

I'm waiting for your article. I belive many other users also do...

[ratt794]

It is as easy as setting to the resolution you want and captuing. There is no magic to it. The important thing to understand is what bandwidth your source material is so the proper resolution can be selected. This is why I posted the bandwidth of typical sources.

Any good capture card with S-Video and 720x480 capability will have at least 5 MHz Analog Y Video Bandwidth. My ATI AIW 128 Pro does it very well - even from the Tuner built in!

[JSquare]

Comming back to the topic of "CVD"

I spend the last couple of weeks trying to master the conversion of DVD to CVD. So far I had very good results, until I tried a project of authoring a CVD movie into a DVD+RW.

The DVD movie is "The 5th Element" 16:9, 126mins. encoded in TMPGEnc using the modified SVCD template at 352x480 (NTSC), 2-Pass VBR 600min, 1600avg, 2520max, audio 128k 48Khz, total file size 1.618GB.

First I tried DVDit PE, the project show up as 2.4GB instead of 1.6GB and in the properties of the CVD says "NO AUDIO". I de-multiplexed the CVD file thinking that it will solve the problem but DVDit rejected the .mp2 file, then I renamed the .mp2 to .wav, DVDit took it but the file size changed to 1.93GB. I GAVE UP on DVDit.

Second try, Ulead VideoStudio 6 DVD (it came with the piece of sh** of InstantDVD USB box). It freezes when adding the CVD file to the project. I GAVE UP on VideoStudio.

Third, I tried SpruceUp trial and again like VideoStudio it freezes at 10% when adding the CVD file to the project.

I thought that the idea of using CVD was the "high compatibility" with DVD and it supposed to be as easy as "drag & drop" without the need of conversion or re-encoding.

My final conclusion, CVD is not a DVD complaint format as we all believe or the specs that we're discussing in this forum are incompatible.

In any case if anyone has tried the same procedure as me please respond with your results.

[erzug]

I was able to successfully convert CVD to DVD format (Vobs, IFO, BUp, etc.) using DVD Movie Factory.

[JSquare]

To: erzug

Could you share the specifics of the whole conversion?

At least the encoding part and the size/lenght of the video.

Thanks!