i do not see the resize tab either
also cant get vcdimage to work
i am running xp is this the problem
many thanks
Doug
I've just installed it and the "resize" works on my system (Windows ME).
+ Reply to Thread
Results 91 to 120 of 187
-
-
i do not see the resize tab either
also cant get vcdimage to work
i am running xp is this the problem
many thanks
Doug
(using Windows ME). -
i do not see the resize tab either
also cant get vcdimage to work
i am running xp is this the problem
many thanks
Doug
I've just installed it and the "resize" option shows itself as shown in the guide (using Windows ME). -
you say dvd2svcd is faster than tmpeg when creating a cvd
is this the only advantage or is the image quality better using cinemacraft?
by the way great guide thanks 8) -
you say dvd2svcd is faster than tmpeg when creating a cvd
is this the only advantage or is the image quality better using cinemacraft?
by the way great guide thanks
Baker -
Originally Posted by baker
-
i'm sorry but i am a complete newbie, i dont see a selection for svcd under dvd-burning in nero (i have the pioneer a-o4). I see video-dvd and dvd copy nut no option for scvd. do i convert to something else or can i do it all in nero? again forgive me for sounding like a complete idiot. i have dvdit pe but i dont know which file (that DVD2SVCD made) to drag in to dvdit. please help.....
-
i'm sorry but i am a complete newbie, i dont see a selection for svcd under dvd-burning in nero (i have the pioneer a-o4). I see video-dvd and dvd copy nut no option for scvd. do i convert to something else or can i do it all in nero? again forgive me for sounding like a complete idiot. i have dvdit pe but i dont know which file (that DVD2SVCD made) to drag in to dvdit. please help.....
-
Baker, just to add a coment to your guide:
For low bitrates, lower that 1800kb/s, then TMPGenc plus is better.
That is my opinion and most CCE/TMPGenc advance users seems to agree:
CCE is better with "higher" bitrates, while TMPGenc is better for "Lower" bitrates.
Personally, expecially for 16:9 movies, I suggest users to encode to 2 CDs a movie (80 - 100 min), with lower bitrates and TMPGenc.
The result won't look like DVD, but they gonna look like SVHS. Ain't bad...
Also, we must create a database with our experience of the sharpen edge filter. It looks that only certain values have good effects. Many times, this filter add only noise, not sharpness for same strange reason.
Anyway, nice guide -
I think your backways there satstorm. I know its been a long time since I have done my testing but CCE has and will be for quite a long time better quailty at low bitrates. I challange you to encode a 16:9 movie(not 21:9 or something like that) at a bitrate of 1500avg in tmpegenc then in CCE both using multipass set at two. max 2400 min 500 avg 1500. Now tell me which looks better and which file is smaller? Also note encoding times, BIG difference there.
7hrs vs 80hrs
Baker -
Oh yes while sharpen is great I don't reccomend that for newbies at all. its very riskey as you said can sometimes add noise. Gettin' the order of filters is also important.
temporal smoother,(to relieve macroblocks)
resize,(to relieve more marcoblocks)
Sharpen.(to add detail)
Sounds the best to me.
Baker -
Hey Baker... interesting guide.. was in process of trying it out when a storm blew out the power here in Texas.. GACK!! There went a few hours rendering out the door...
It has been a long while since I used DVD2SVCD. I like this incarnation of it and am greatful for all the cool posts that I have read here on VCDHelp. Has helped me to understand a lot, good job guys...
This aspect ratio thingy still boggles me.. I am no newbie, but I am far from a seasoned vet. On the conversion tab, the aspect ratio that it is asking for is the "source" aspect ratio correct not the "target" aspect ratio?
I believe that is 4:3 for NTSC.
The only thing that I would like to see DVD2SVCD do is allow you to perform a small test to see a possible quality test without having to interrupt the automated process and replace files. Yes, I know that this is relative, but at least it would help. I just might suggest that on that DOOM9 forums..
Keep up the great work. By the by, I had absolutely no trouble following your guide and applying the setting that you had stated. I thought you had a nice well thought out guide with step by step instructions. Thank you.
Sod out... -
@SodGawd
RIGHT: 4:3 means that the image will be strecthed to fit a 4:3 rectangle regardless of the actuall size of the image.
GOOD BECAUSE: on 16:9 teles they will show the correct aspect ratio and actuall give a better picture.
BAD BECAUSE: 4:3 teles will have the stretched image and evrything will appear virtically strecthed.
When 16:9 encoded as 4:3 is used then a 4:3 image is created but the 16:9 image will be placed in the centre of the screen so a correct image will appear on a 4:3 tele.
Anymore q's?
Baker -
Great Guide Baker, and thanks also SatStorm. I am currently also try to convert all my homevideo (mini DV) to CVD. Previousely I coverted them to SVCD. Just one simple question, in SVCD scenario, to save some pixels, I added the border (16,19,16,19) when did resizing followed by some guide around here which supposed TV overscan area (can't be seen in TV). For example, in avs script:
BicubicResize(448,538)
AddBorders(16,19,16,19)
which give me the final size 480x576
Can I add the same borders in the CVD scenario? or in CVD, there will not be any TV overscan area?
I means it's better to resize directly to 352x576 or to 320x538 then add the borders?
Any help?
Thanks in advanced
PS. comparing the same film with the same bitrates setting, the quality in CVD is better than SVCD from my tests. -
Great Guide Baker, and thanks also SatStorm. I am currently also try to convert all my homevideo (mini DV) to CVD. Previousely I coverted them to SVCD. Just one simple question, in SVCD scenario, to save some pixels, I added the border (16,19,16,19) when did resizing followed by some guide around here which supposed TV overscan area (can't be seen in TV). For example, in avs script:
BicubicResize(448,538)
AddBorders(16,19,16,19)
which give me the final size 480x576
Can I add the same borders in the CVD scenario? or in CVD, there will not be any TV overscan area?
I means it's better to resize directly to 352x576 or to 320x538 then add the borders?
Any help?
Thanks in advanced
PS. comparing the same film with the same bitrates setting, the quality in CVD is better than SVCD from my tests. -
So here's an idea i had...
Say i have this DVD that i've ripped. This DVD is larger than 4.5GB, so it'll need to be split to 2 DVD-R's. That sucks.
Now - CVD produces DVD-compliant video streams. Would it be possible to use CVD to convert my video stream into a smaller (MUCH smaller) fiolesize, then replace the original video stream with the smaller CVD stream, and burn as a DVD-R?
I'm thinking like this - convert to CVD using the guide. Then, drop your streams into SpruceUp (or another DVD authoring program) and save the VIDEO_TS folder. This should write the streams as VOB files. Move the VOB files into the VIDEO_TS folder of your ripped DVD, and rename the VOBs to reflect the names of the original VOBs which contained the original video stream. Then make some changes with IfoEdit, and burn that sucker!
It'd be nice if this worked, as this process is a lot faster than transcoding the video stream with ReMPEG or TMPGEnc.
Has anyone tried this? I'm going to make an attempt this evening, and i'll post my results, but if anyone already has experience i'd like to hear about it. -
Well written guide Baker although i dont know why you say use 1 pass VBR and then go onto say you want great quality at 60mins plus per disc, if you want 60mins of great quality on one disc then its 4 pass VBR, using DVD2SVCD and CCE, but looking at your computer specifications i can see why you would avoid that like the plague, I did Bandits which is just under 2 hours like that and most people i have shown it too think its DVD, unless i tell them, i notice though, but that took me 10hours on my system.
Whats with all the double posts in this forum.
Satstorm i dont agree on your Tmpeg theory on 80-100min films on 2 discs, CCE is far superior in that range to Tmpeg and a lot faster, if i use CVD and use 4 pass VBR, i can encode at about 1.2x and get a 2 hour film done in 8 hours.
Baker, i havn't used 1 pass much and aren't too sure on it but it does mention if you use a Q of 5 it will fit on a disc, but does it fill the disc or do you end up with a 600mb file or something, which looks crap.
:P -
Well, CCE or TMPGenc? This is an old hype...
CCE is better, but not THAT better.
There are also some issues, not well known but very interresting:
Mjpeg codec for example, ain't the best friend of TMPGenc. It is true that when you encode with old good ver 12 (or 12a if you don't want vbr), the results are better than the newer versions like the current 2.56 plus. Using other codex, you get better picture. Huffy for example. But that way, files go really big. So, you choose what suits your needs
Currently, I have a problem with tmpgenc, which I don't have it with CCE. TMPGenc add noise (not blocks, noise!) in static parts of a picture, like letters, tv logos etc. This problem getting more with the new versions. If you use that setting "no motion search for still picture part by half pixel", this problem stops,but you have other problems that way... Currently, I testing what is better. Our friend tsunami, suggest (if you load the standard SVCD template) that to "on", so he must have his reasons.... Over the years, I learn that default settings of TMPGenc have reasons to be there. The problem is that those settings are optimised for NTSC and DV source. For PAL, our analogue grabbs or for DVB/DVD rips, the things are different somehow. This is an issue which I would like to hear your conclusions.
Anyway, back to our issue
For me, the point is not if CCE is better TMPGenc. It is better and we know it. My point is why some videos from TMPGenc are almost CCE quality, and how I can succeed that kind of results myself.
You see, using a fronter and a CQ type encoding method, I have excellent results. The point is to make the same (or better) results the correct way. And if the books say for example : multipass VBR is better one Pass, then it have to be that way. If I can't succeed the quality, then I have to find the "why" and fix it.
That is how it started with CVD. I gather the infos from every possible source, test them and then publish the results for others. What I suggest in my faq is true and not scifi (like some people mail me...).
If you don't have the quality/sharpness I said, then test and find why. It is possilble, but ain't easy. I can't understand how people with non HD TVs, can see difference between CVD/SVCD for example. It is impossible! The quality is identical, and if your tests ain't that way, then they must be some probs the way you do the tests.
I already found a minus for CVD for compatibillity, and it is the R1 DVD standalones: They don't have to be CVD compatible, only SVCD compatible, like Philips sets. The reason simply: R1 is not for use in china....
There must be other issues also about the quality. I believe one of them is how capable for pan & scan a standalone can be. Some standalones have null this feature and some ad filters in the proccess. The second ones shows CVD like DVD at mainstream technology TVs, while the first ones shows them like Crap. Sometimes worst VCDs!
Do you see how many parameters are here to consider?
About the low bitrates/high bitrates, (tmpgenc vs CCE) a search in the forum (and doom9's one) related with this subject, can easily presents you the both sides. I belong to those who believe that for Low bitrates, TMPGenc is better. Others say the oposite. Only someone who test himself gonna see what suit his needs! -
@Martyn
Quote:1 pass VBR and then go onto say you want great quality at 60mins plus per disc, if you want 60mins of great quality on one disc then its 4 pass VBR, using DVD2SVCD and CCE, but looking at your computer specifications i can see why you would avoid that like the plague,
Well your right about the speed issue, but its not my computer I am worried about. You have a fast computer, why not try my method tonight. Of course the speed will be a LOT faster since there is only 1 pass. But look at the quaility, its great. Since this Q stuff is quite random I can only give a rough estimate but I am getting around 50mins per cd, sometimes less. Gladiator on 3cds is proving to be a challange. Its not the length but the film is nearly all action and sand. A q of 7 is giving me almost the whole film on 3 cds except the end credits which come on another. I am trying to get a good Q setting and getting closer and closer... when I do I will update the guide (with new images, finally) with a little Q guide saying the Q you should use depanding on the length of your movie and the genre (action, drama..etc). So maybe you can help me if you want start doing some testing I will greatfully appreciate some input....
@SatStorm
I know this is off topic but do you know what mbs and resouloution a channel is allowed on on sky digital?
Baker -
If you don't have the quality/sharpness I said, then test and find why. It is possilble, but ain't easy. I can't understand how people with non HD TVs, can see difference between CVD/SVCD for example. It is impossible! The quality is identical, and if your tests ain't that way, then they must be some probs the way you do the tests.
Satstorm i dont test it against SVCD i test it against 704x576, which is what im happy with, maybe i will use CVD in longer films with more action in them to reduce the blocks, but i can easily tell the difference between the two, they do not look identical.
Maybe as you are saying, i am doing something wrong but i cant see what it is, i will try it against SVCD and i probably wont notice the difference, but i dont use SVCD anymore.
I have tryed using it through CCE and TMpeg at CBR, VBR and CQ and have got the same results every time, i like CVD and i will use it when i think it is needed, but right now i wont comit to one format as i think different films and sources need different ways of doing them, one res and bitrate and encoder might work for some films but not all, im planning on getting a DVD burner soon so right now i am only sticking to CVD and 704x576 anyway.
Baker
I might take you up on that as i was gonna encode Gladiator anyway through a different discussion in another post.
Im pretty sure i could easily get Gladiator onto 3 discs with great quality, and i'd be wary of End Credits on films, all the credits on my films look great if i use 2.5mbs max bitrate and a high resolution, but it will use the whole bitrate constantly, i have been thinking of doing the end credits at a a CBR and keeping them a certain size, then taking that size off 1600mb or 2400mb and encoing the film that way, cause if i cut it properly in a fade out no one will notice it and i dont want to cut the credits out.
i would also be interested to know the resolution and bitrate of Sky Digital, and NTL Digital which is what i use if its different, especially channels like Bravo, Living and VH1 Classic which look terrible in my opinion(too many blocks)
-
About gladiator:
Currently doing another re-encode with a q of 9. Looks like it will be slightly out of size. I believe that If I find a good Q setting to get gladiator on 3 cds and the matrix on 2 cds (both anamorphic which makes the file size quite bigger) then I can start to get good estimates for file size.
about sky digicrap:
Personally I think ALL channels are crap. I am surprised that box office looks so bad as it shuold look perfect due to the source, but its probably the best of the bunch. The worst of the bunch is either paramount or extreme sports.
baker -
@Baker,
Looking back through this humongous thread, it looks like I inadvertently asked a loaded question. Since it seems I was the first "moron" to ask, here's an apology for the rest of the "morons" who asked the same thing.
Lets hope this puts to bed the infamous..."I can't see the darn CVD resize thingy" question.
Oh and one more thing, your guide is very nice and the rest of us "morons" really appreicate the hard work you do
Cheers,hitch
Similar Threads
-
DVD compliant and 60fps?
By fearmyrage in forum Authoring (DVD)Replies: 11Last Post: 28th Apr 2012, 22:51 -
Final Cut Express 4 can I create chapters for a DVD I create
By Jabroni4872 in forum MacReplies: 1Last Post: 18th May 2008, 11:36 -
making a compliant resolution mpeg2 file from a non-compliant .mkv file
By dwisniski in forum Video ConversionReplies: 1Last Post: 7th Mar 2008, 06:49 -
Anyway to make a non compliant disc compliant?
By zanos in forum Authoring (DVD)Replies: 9Last Post: 23rd Feb 2008, 10:46 -
Quality loss VHS > CVD, DVD
By rglmrj in forum Video ConversionReplies: 15Last Post: 1st Jun 2007, 12:13