CVD - your trials and tribulations!

[energy80s]

I have encoded over 60 CVD's in the last 2 months and I have never seen the effects that you are talking of. These discs are from both TV Captures and DVD rips. Picture quality is better than SVCD and more compatible to boot!

[SatStorm]

If you use NTSC you probably need some filtering for CVD... Use the sharpen edge filter to a value of 32 both and you end up with a better than SVCD sharpness.

Most of as, the PAL users, are happy with CVD and the sharpness is equal to SVCD and 1/2D1 DVD-Video! We don't even need the use of filters!
Don't forget that CVD is PAL optimised!

[merkin]

If you use NTSC you probably need some filtering for CVD... Use the sharpen edge filter to a value of 32 both and you end up with a better than SVCD sharpness.

Most of as, the PAL users, are happy with CVD and the sharpness is equal to SVCD and 1/2D1 DVD-Video! We don't even need the use of filters!
Don't forget that CVD is PAL optimised!

Man, I'm so glad I'm a PAL-boy!!

Just a quick update, for those who are still just starting with CVD and getting not too good quality (like I did at the start), I really want to emphasise at this point the importance of putting 'motion search' on the highest quality (but slowest) setting. Lets face it, with video encoding time really shouldn't be an issue as it takes bloomin ages anyway, whats an extra few hours gonna do?! I made my first 'proper' CVD of our family's 'Christmas 1998' home movie this morning, having encoded the avi over night for the first time using the settings in the first post to this thread. I have to say, I think the combination of "VBR-2 pass (avg 2520)", "DC component=10" and "motion search=highest quality" really does nail it on the head... the CVD has come out fantastic!! For those still in doubt over quality, give that a go and see how you get on.

[merkin]

Oh yes I forgot to ask this last time! Right, I think I've pretty much got my combination of settings sorted, so I'm moving onto creating menu's and chapters for my CVDs. I tried a while back but gave up to concentrate on quality issues, and now I've come back to it I'm getting exactly the same problem!! The problem being this:

I use Nero to create my CVDs using the SVCD option. When I go into the menu tab, it all works fine, and I select a jpg as the background image etc. The preview tab shows the menu exactly how I want it and all seems rosy. Unfortunately, when I burn the CVD and play it in my DVD player, the menu is stretched far too much horizontaly, meaning a large chunk of both sides of the whole menu are cut off. It's not just the background picture (which would be easy to work around), it's actually all the links and text as well... the whole bloody thing is stretched out far too much. It's getting annoying as I'd love to create some cool menus for our xmas videos. Has anyone else had this problem? I'm kind of thinking it's because the DVD player is expecting an SVCD (as that is what Nero in theory has burned it as), and so somewhere down the line the difference in horizontal resolution (between CVD and SVCD) of the video has made the player over-compensate the horizontal width of the menu... i.e. it has to stretch the width of the video, so 'thinks' it has to stretch the width of the menu as well when it's actually at the correct res in the first place. Can you see what I'm saying? What do you think? Got any ideas?!

[Arnnie]

Interesting...

I say this because the nero menus work perfectly with my CVD standard movies. Both on the PC and on my Philips standalone DVD player.

Arnnie

[SatStorm]

I don't think that the problem is CVD, but the combo of nero and your standalone!
Nero, ain't exactly the best proggy for menus. That's why there are programs like VCD imager. So, you have now to learn how to use those programs with CVD!

One more thing: Try with 1200 min 2400average and 2520max and set DC component=8 (as the default). This produce SVCD like files in quality. The DC component for bitrates 0-2500 is better to set it to 8. For 2500-3500 set it to 9 and beyond 3500 you can set it to 10.
Using DC component at 10 with low bitrates like those we use in CVD/SVCD, gonna produce Blur-like picture and bad colors in general, but less blocks! In earlier versions of TMPGenc, that helped overall. With the current versions of tmpgenc plus, we don't have reason to do this anymore!

[Martyn1980]

Do you recommend using Tmpeg to do CVD as i usually use CCE and set the DC component to auto.

My average bitrates are 500min 4000max, with the average varying depending on the film, but my DVD plays almost anything as long as its Mpeg2, 1200min seems kinda high in my opinion, some parts of films look perfect and the intro credits usually look perfect and if you check the bitrate in something like Power DVD, then you see its usually under 1mb a second, having a high min bitrate limits how high the max can go and im very happy with the results im getting using this, this is with a resolution of 704x576, as i usually use Pal sources.

I am happy with my current resolution and bitrates and the encoder i use but if using Tmpeg CVD and a min 0f 1200 improves things im am open to suggestions.

[SatStorm]

No, I don't think so...
If you manage to work with CCE, then I see no reason to switch to tmpgenc...

[Martyn1980]

I dont either, but everyone who seems happy with their results seem to be using Tmpeg, and i thought i was missing something, but from what i have seen the Tmpeg people (no offence) seem less fussy in my opinion.

I dont think i am going wrong here i just think that my personal taste is towards, crystal clear, sharp detailed video, which is why i use DVD resolution, there might be a bit more blocks in high action scenes, but if the VBR works well enough, and theres not too many high action scenes, then it should be ok.

One last thing, why does the color go bad, well not bad just darker and more fake looking and the end credits seem to look the same as they do on VHS, i know this might seem sad but i read the credits and want them to look good, vhs had a problem on them so did VCD, DVD do them perfect and i can nearly achieve the same quality myself, although the bitrate does hit the maximum on them, which does makes me think im wasting it on something most people turn off at.

[baker]

Well I am now using my dvd2svcd cvd guide a lot now and the quailty is good. I say good as there is a difference between cvd and svcd and it is very noticible. Anmyway sharpness over dvd compatibility ..

By the way the blockyness using cvd and my guide with up to 55 mins per cd is great!!!! there is no blocks what so ever! However there is no blocks CCE suffers from loads of noise. Very anoying.

But for speed and quailty its still better.the lowest I go is 1500 and the quailty is almost the same.

Just my two cents.

there is a great film on digital sattellite pretty soon and I want to tape it. The problem being sky digital is crap quailty and the channel I will be taping off aint too good.

Has anybody got n e filters make specificatly for reducing block noise?

I really need it if I am going to be capturing from digital sattellite.

Baker

[mystic.man]

so here i go again ...

after weeks of work to create a deinterlaced cvd rip of futurama (pal) i´m finally done (working on normal dvd rips has been done within 2 hours ... but hey ... to figure out, how to deinterlace that crappy dvd was really hard work!) and ...

IT´S GREAT!!!

i did a 2-pass encoding with avg. of 1650 min. of 1200 and of course the usual max. of 2520 (think so?)

including three audio streams (german, english and the audio commentary) including thre subtitle streams (the minimum translation to german, the complete german subs and the translation of the audio commentary)

i got 2 episodes on one cd and i´m really REALLY excited about cvd ...

thank you all very much for the great guide and for your help for newbies, as i am.

but now: one last question:

how do i add chapter informations in nero? ... NO MENU ... just only the chapters ... is there any way, to figure it out?

thanks for your re´s ...

so long
ken

[SatStorm]

@mystic.man: You need to learn programs like VCD Imager for those things... Nero is only for very basic menus.

@Baker: "Well I am now using my dvd2svcd cvd guide a lot now and the quailty is good. I say good as there is a difference between cvd and svcd and it is very noticible. Anmyway sharpness over dvd compatibility .. "

Impossible! Try harder! Or you own a HDTV? On mainstream TVs there is no way to see a difference!
Or is something with CCE? It looks that many CCE users DON"T like the results of their CVD, while TMPGenc users love them..

Hmmm......

[baker]

@ mystic

If you r doing dvd2cvd may I reccomend my guide, chapters, automatic bitrate calculator, image making,... etc Its great just click the cvd link on the bottom.

Baker

[Martyn1980]

Satstorm nothing is impossibe

Thats what i asked you, i was under the impression you were an expert on both encoders, i havn't tested SVCD vs CVD on my tv yet as i cant be bothered wasting any more discs right now, but i dont imagine there is much difference, and i dont think its the encoder, Tmpeg produces a more blurry picture than CCE anyway, most people confuse this with smoothness but its not the same thing, i dont like filters of any kind, not to blur or to sharpen, if i only use high quality sources, then i wont need them, Tmpeg natural image looks like theres a filter on it, thats why it looks better at lower bitrates, i tried CCE on Mpeg1 CBR 1150 and there was a lot of noise, compared to when i used Tmpeg on the same clip, but there was a little more detail on the CCE clip, its a matter of taste.

Can someone who thinks CVD is sharper tell me their settings for Tmpeg, cause if it is better i would go back to Tmpeg, even if its slower, i use 5 pass VBR now anyway, i dont mind waiting.

And Satstorm do you also think it is impossible to see the difference between DVD resolution and CVD on a normal TV, because i know what im seeing and i think im using CCE the best i can.

[vhelp]

Martyn1980,

First,
>> Can someone who thinks CVD is sharper tell me their settings for Tmpeg, cause
>> if it is better i would go back to Tmpeg, even if its slower, i use 5 pass VBR
>> now anyway, i dont mind waiting.
Sorry, I can't tell you my secret - - nah, juts kidding. There is NO secret to
TMPG settings.
But, I cannot say that CVD is sharper. Only slightly less blocker due
to the obvious - less bitrate/per/resolution, bla, bla, bla, etc.
But, you've seen my sample CVD clip I did. If not, it's still avail for
D/L.
So, why was the quality so good (based on others here reporting back) ? ?
Well. . .
* Source - Satalite
* Source quality - Very good, very min. noise
* Spource, again was very good at the source (station)
* my filter cleaning of any noise
* my capture was 352x480 via HUFFY codec. (oh, by the way, this same clip would
NOT encode via CCE) (though capped in HUFFY, when CCE DID manage to encode it,
video was upside down and 2 colors and was VERY blocky, and I used very high
settings max 4000 vbr, 3 passes)
* TMPG settings: Again [for that clip], CQ_VBR: 1450/300, no padding


>> And Satstorm do you also think it is impossible to see the difference between
>> DVD resolution and CVD on a normal TV, because i know what im seeing and i
>> think im using CCE the best i can.
I think that you should not see any difference of 352 vs. 720, when you are
viewing on your TV, but of course, you'll see the difference if you are
viewing on your PC monitor!
the 720 will be scaled down to 352 to fit your TV. So, that's why we tend
to insist to you that capturing at 352 vs. 720 is just as good AND will
not tax your system AND will require less disk space. So, there is some
benefits to capturing at 352 vs. 720
However, if you are planning on viewing for PC monitor, then of course you
will wont to capture at highest resolution, hence 720 in this case.
But for DVD (vcd/svcd/CVD) creation playing on your TV, 352
is the way to go.


...just wining over here - - can ignore and move on to other posts.

2ND, I envy you and others out their that CAN and DO use CCE in
their projects. I've ben plauged w/ CCE SOO NOT in ANY of my video
encoding endeavors!!
I ben meaning to give CCE a go so that I can test for myself the quality
difference vs. TMPG's, but it's ben a battle that seems to never die.
Every so often, I get the urge to give it one more shot, and before
you know it, I'm at it for HOURS, and still, no go.
Sometimes, it passes the first successfully, then on the 2nd and/or
rest of the passess, it bombs out with multibple errors, which I've
encluded below, a taste of the plauge. I've tried every codec, and
every combo of codec settings to no avail.
Below, are ALL the codecs and it's variations I used to no avail. FYI:
from YUV to YV12 to brooktree YUV 411 to HUFFY to ATI YUV to indeo,
to uncompressed RGB, etc. All these variations just will not work
with my CCE (trial version v2.50, though I've tried just about all
the versions out their [i think])
I've also tried frameserving by:
* dragging the *.AVS file into CCE
* dragging a *.vdr file into CCE
* dragging a *.avi file into CCE (frameserving from vdub)
* dragging a PLAIN/STRAIGHT *.avi file into CCE as is.
Sometimes, it encodes on the first pass w/success, but crashes w/
error message (below is an ie) and sometimes, it wont even finish
half-way through before it crashes out w/ error message(s)
And, finally, below is all the data format i've tried using
while capturing:
* 16/24/32-bit RGB
* CYUV
* UYVY
* YUYV
* YUY2
* YV12
* I420
* IYUV
* YVU9
CCE just keeps spitting out error messages of all sorts - no matter what!
But, every other encoder will encode w/ flawless success!! And, of
course, quality is excellent - - just can't get to TEST cce with my
encodes. Anyways. . .
I thought this plauge was due to my previous motherboard, MSI and
it's VIA chipsets, but now that I have the ECS K7S5A, I am STILL
plauged! I don't think there is a person alive that can get
CCE working for me on my motherboard setup successfully, from this
point on! AFAIK, it's a imposible feat!!

ERROR MESSAGE:
------------------------------------------------------
cce encoding failed: Error: Video check-sum is different from that of previous pass.
Source video data or time code may be different
Please check video tape or the information file
Please check video tape or the information file

--information--
Current: check sum = 0069800a
Previous: check sum = 0069e3b6
.............[ ok ].............
------------------------------------------------------

What's even worse, is if you have the SAME motherboard/cpu setup and have
NO problems - - I deffinately invey you!!

Good evening all
-vhelp

[JSquare]

How about a CVD(NTSC) template for Tmpeg!!!

Just tried the unlocked DVD template with the following changes:

Video: 352x480 29.97FPS 2-Pass VBR 1150Min 2520Max 1600Avg
No-interlace, Motion Search at Normal, DC=9 no filters

Audio: 160Kbps/48Khz

Stream Type: MPEG2 SuperVCD (VBR)

Source videos are:
1) DivX (16:9,720x400,29.97FPS, 60 Minutes) AVI file, the WAV audio file extracted with VirtualDub 128Kbps/48Khz. TARGET 1 80Mins CD
2) Ripped DVD (4:3, Film, 115 Minutes) used SmartRipper, DVD2AVI for frame serving and to extract the 48Khz audio. TARGET 2 80Mins CDs

- Encoded with Tmpeg Plus v2.56.39.143

- Burning the CD using VCDEasy instead of Nero.

- Desktop DVD player Apex 600A

The results are mixed but so far I'm not very happy with it, some blockiness, lack of sharpness and dull colors are very common. Compared to SVCDs of the same source my CVDs are inferior, but the problem could be with my settings, I really want to adopt the CVD format,
I just got a DVD+R drive and I want to convert some clips to CVD and transfer them into a 5Hr+ DVD.

My main concerns are the compatibility with other DVD players, also I want to make sure that I'm using the proper settingss for an complaint CVD file.

Any help would be appriciated, Thanks!

[vhelp]

martyn1980,

oops, I forgot to add this in, after re-reading your post:

>> Satstorm nothing is impossibe
...well, except for VHELPs cce issues, he, he...

[malducci]

Well, I didn't read through all the posts but here it my experience with CVD. I first discovered CVD 5 months ago when I was reading the history about SVCD ( someone copied a section of the site I was reading from and posted it here a couple of weeks ago ). I actually didn't start really using it until about 3 months ago when I learned the resolution was a legal res for DVD format. Since I plan on converting my SVCD's back to DVD someday, I figured this was a speed up in the conversion process in the future. In my trials I found that using BicubicResize is much more important in CVD than in SVCD. I used to use SimpleResize with 480xXXX, but this leads to slight scaling artifacts in 352xXXX - Bicubic helps eliminate the scaling artifacts in DVD to CVD. Also I used to use 2400-2500 bitrate with 128kbit audio for my previous SVCDs because I didn't want to loose and visual quality, leaving certain DVD rips with a 3rd CD that only contained <10 minutes of video. Now with CVD and letterbox video, I'm more likely to lower the bitrate to fit it on two CD's ( sometimes hehe ). Also, CVD is great for music videos that are 24fps TC/ 29.97fps video hybrids - I can blend fields; encode at 29.97fps; and still get good quality @ 2400+VBR - less blocks than 480xXXX res.

Oh yeah, I used CCE 2.5 with no problems

[Martyn1980]

Vhelp, you do have a very similar system to what i am using, so you shouldn't be having these problems when i can encode a 90min film in about 7 hours using 4 pass VBR, without any problems, to be honest i am lazy and i use DVD2SVCD a lot and Fit CD to create my avs scripts and i never have any problems with CCE, i am using CCE 2.5, and add resample audio to the script, using DVD2SVCD or FitCD or by hand, before i did this i CCE used to freeze at 65% on VBR, Fit CD has a few other little resizing tricks which aparently help CCE but the resample audio part is important for people using Athlon processors, i doubt you dont already know this but i had to say it anyway.

And i judge my results on my TV anyway, if i judged them on the PC i would never be happy, 720 is far sharper and clearer looking then 352, its not a little difference its quite obvious, so im still baffled why most people are saying otherwise, thats why i thought it was a CCE thing, CCE is optimised for DVD and Tmpeg mostly VCD, so i thought maybe Tmpeg at 720 isnt as sharp or as detailed as it is on CCE, because its only the Tmpeg users who say theres no difference, although Jsquare said he noticed the dull colors and lack of detail and he was using Tmpeg.

I'd also like a Tmpeg template for CVD to see where i am going wrong

[vhelp]

martyn1980,

>> And i judge my results on my TV anyway, if i judged them on the PC i would never
>> be happy, 720 is far sharper and clearer looking then 352, its not a little
>> difference its quite obvious, so im still baffled why most people are saying
>> otherwise, thats why. . .
I was talking about capturing at 352 vs. 720 for TV viewing. ...that you
wont (or shouldn't) notice the difference between the two resolutions cause the
TV will scale the 720 down to 352 anyways!
But, for PC monitoring viewing, YES, there is an absolute quality difference!!
720 DOES look much better than 352, when viewed on PC monitor.

and, forget about a template for tmpg. It's not the template that make/breaks
an encode. It's the SOURCE! The quality, that of it, that is.

Other than the audio: 48k
and the resolution: 352, pretty much everything else, it's an xSVCD

For those who R having problems play CVD, may I recommend this procedure, doing
another CVD encode:
* do your capturing/rip and setup to CVD specs
* but, set audio to 44k instead of 48k

If your CVD plays fine in your DVD player, than, at least we figure out why it
works/doesn't work on some DVD player - - cause some player don't play the 48k
while others do, and also, maybe some players play the 352 resolution while
other don't!!

-vhelp

[SatStorm]

Basicly, I have to say that I tested both CCE and TMPGenc but I prefer to use tmpgenc as it is more easy for me with DVB source. I open the ripped DVB mpeg 2 file with dvd2avi to create the d2v and mpa files and I load them to TMPGenc. There, I crop/sharp and sometimes define the source area by frame and hit encode. It is much easier (for me) than use CCE and avisynth (which I have to test and learn further, when I found some time...)
Also, I am not an expert in anything mpeg related, just an advance user. I am expert in satellite matters ...

CCE is a good proggy, if you can buy it, but you might have problems if
you use AMD proccessors and your motherboard is based in any Via chipset. It is not the best friend of AMD users.

About the picture quality of CVD and SVCD.
Honestly, it is impossible to see a difference in a standard TV. Only on HDTV you will see a kind of difference. Even in a videoprojector with a resolution 800 X 600 you can't see a difference!

So, why people see difference?

One reason for this is the codec we use during the analogue grabbing. Huffyuv is the best but the filesize is huge. The Mjpeg codecs are almost the same in much smaller filesizes when you use them with CCE, but those ones ain't the best solution for use with tmpgenc...
Personally, I always see a kind of a courtin, a noise distortion all over the screen when I use a mjpeg codec and encode with TMPGenc. No blocks, no smoothness. Just like something covers the picture... I don't have this effect when I use Huffyuv! The picture is by far more clear.
The Asus codecs (it is possible to use them with non asus cards ) are slighty better mjpeg ones. I know from personal experience that a file grabbed with virtualdub and the asus codec, is equal in picture quality with PicVideo @19 value, but the filesize is like using PicVideo's @18 value! In a way it is good alternative to PicVideo but still doesn't eliminate the "problem"
The way I see it, a TMPGenc user must use Huffyuv and not PicVideo. So, go and buy huge Hard Discs!

With CCE, you don't have that "problem". And this is one reason many people like the picture you get if you encode with the combo CCE/PicVideo.

CVD ain't sharper SVCD. It is equal. If you use the sharpen edge filter with TMPGenc, then you get sharper image. But use this filter wise, 'cause from a point and beyond, adds noise!

Are you hard testers? Then try to do this:
Encode the same clip three times: one time as 720 X 288/240, one time as 352 X 576/480 and one time as 480 X 576/480. Use the same bitrate for the 2 first ones and rise 20% the birtate for 480 X 576. If your DVD standalone support xSVCD, then burn those files as a non Standard xSVCD and compare them on your TV. You 'll be suprised! The 720 X 288/240 gonna look sharperthe other 2 ones. but with not the same detail.
Sharpness and detail are 2 different things

Anyway, this is one more reason I repeat all the time that CVD ain't for newbies! If you have master SVCD, then you know how to tweek CVD and look even better SVCD. If you don't know, then you end up with wrong conclusions... Anyway...

Vhelp, when you say "Satalite" you mean Satellite transmissions?

[Martyn1980]

This is the problem here, all my tests are from using DVD as the source, and you two are mostly using captured film, and i know nothing about capturing.

Im not sure were u guys come from but im from UK and i have digital cable and 20% of the time the quality is great. 30% its watchable and 50% is just plain shit, and thats on a small TV, id hate to see what it looked like on a PC, i would never be completely happy with the results, and until i get a Digital Video Camera, i dont imagine i will get a capture card.

Ive heard CCE has problems with Athlon processors and VIA chipsets but i have both and apart from the 65% freezing thing which is sorted now, ive had no problems, i learn quickly and the day i got CCE i printed out the PDF document and read it a dozen times, along with everything on frameserving as i couldnt resize like i thought i could in Tmpeg, i dont mind learning something new if it means an improvement, and the time you spend messing with CCE is surely save in the encoding time.

I dont want to sound like im argumentive satstorm, but it is not my imagination, if my source is DVD and i use a min500 Max4000 on 5 pass VBR and my res is DVD it looks a lot better than CVD, i even stuck the DVD in a 14"portable TV and then i cant really see the difference

[SatStorm]

Well, don't use CVD! It is easy like this....

About my source, it is not from analogue grabbs, exept those one from sky digital (MTV Dance mostly, suck a lot for quality, and Sky One Ireland -I load it seperated on other channels menu- 'cause the picture is better sky one UK)

My source is always DVB rips, direct from satellite, the direct streaming. It is like the vobs you get from DVD, but here there are mpeg 2 direct. I use advance equipment for this (nokia 9600 with dvb2000 firmware, using SCSI and programs like dvbrecorder 1.19b).
European DVB services are far better sky digital in picture quality and also, there are cams for there systems, so you can use the receiver of your choice and the suitable cam. I have them all exept Nagravision (which I can descrable anyway using my irdeto free cam 0.18 and a season interface...)

It seems like you have find the perfect potion for your case, and I would be very happy to read it on the forum. Write a guide! It will help us all!

[adam]

As long as you don't encode audio yet have audio in your source, (either the file itself or the resample audio line in your frameserving script) than cce has no more problems with AMD processors and VIA chipsets than TMPGenc does. Its true there are some major bugs with cce but for each one there is a very simply and noncompromising solution. If your having problems with cce the DVD2SVCD FAQ is a good place to look.

Satstorm you cannot claim that SVCD is not sharper than CVD simply because you personally can't see a difference. Yes the difference is slight and probably most people will not see any difference, whether at the same bits per pixel or not, but its not impossible to see. On my 27" 4:3 tv I DO see a difference. I love CVD and I think 352 is a much more logical vertical resolution to use at SVCD'ish bitrates but SVCD does have its benefits over CVD and sharpness is one of them.

[SatStorm]

Hi Adam, nice to see you in one of my posts!
I use the term "mainstream" TV (and some times the word "standard")because of this thing you mention. There is a difference, but you can't see it on mainstream TVs... Mainstream technology TVs that is... I use this term all the time!
You can see the difference to very simply (cheap) TVs and very advance ones (like those new pixel plus ones from Philips or most of the sony newest models). The first ones 'cause they don't have any kind of built in filters to enchance the picture and the second ones because they have screens capable to show higher resolutions. On those TVs and HDTVs, you gonna see a difference! But the 80% of the users don't have that kind of televisions!

I thought People understood that in my faq: CVD is almost equal SVCD in sharpness and equal only if you use wise the sharpen edge tool of TMPGenc or other encoders. SVCD is sharper by nature

I never said CVD is sharper SVCD. I said (and wrote more that once) that it is equal - IF - you use a sharpess filter wise...
Some other users wrote that CVD is sharper SVCD, not me!

And you can always use the same filters and make SVCD even more sharper that it is by it nature. But this is another point....

About CCE, it is a better encoder. We all know that


I just update the CVD Faq for this subject.

[Martyn1980]

Satstorm even though i said i wasn't interested in capturing, the thought of capturing music channels interests me, even though they are the worst quality, VH1 Classic looks like VCD half the time.

Is it an expensive business and can i capture from Digital Cable and will it be Stereo sound.

By the way does anyone know what sort of sound compression digital TV uses particularly NTL Digital in UK and what sort of bitrates they use, i know nothing of this subject, and would never want to do it for films,as the quality is crap, but im a big music fan and could put up with the picture if i could capture the sound in high quality.

[Raen]

I can't seem to get the templates to work well with my Apex 1500. The quality and file size are outstanding however the audio continiously goes in and out of sync and drives me mad.. I have spent 100 hours encoding and re-encoding various segments of Willow(a dvd capture at 720 by 480 using huffy--a 40 gig file)
I pull the audio off it in Vdub to 44100 uncompressed

The audio goes in and out of snyc no matter what I try

[vhelp]

evening all...

raen,
about your audio problems... I think that sometimes, the causes to audio
synch problems could be do to the:
* use of filters that you may be using in your encode
* how you are frameserving to your final encoder
* changing framerates, etc.
* and any other misc processes you might be doing BEfore or AFter your
send to your ENcoder, ie, pulling audio out, etc.

How I solved most of my audio (if not ALL) is by encoding segments. ie,
say I captured a TV program... you know you have to cut commercials out,
right? So, instead of trying to JOIN them all together into ONE segment,
why not leave them as they are, (segments/pieces) and just encode each
one, using BATCH processing in TMPG?? This way, I can use my skip
button on remote to go to (I guess you call it "chapters") vs. doing a
whole segment MPEG file, and having to FF/RW to certain scenes. However,
if you're doing chapter via VCDimager or whatnot, then this may not be
the answer for you.
Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE to have all my encodes done like they
do them all on DVDs, where you have chapters, and/or scene selections and
you could just go directly to it, etc. But, I don't have the time to go
through VCDimager or whatever else they have out their to LEARN those
complicated aspects of MENU creations and ENTRY points. But, I've sure
LOVE to have this functionality! I just don't see it any easier w/
those apps, even if they are freeware! I seen a few, but they seem a bit
too complicated (not that it would be) but I want something even easier!

CCE v2.50, (note, source is capturing, not dvd ripping source)
Well, I finally got it to work! But, w/ other problems.
* No audio, though it's there [x] is checked (sometimes I uncheck it as per
suggestion)
* Sometimes, audio is their, and everything is fine - success, that is.
No, I haven't ben able to judge qualiity yet, as I can't right now, with
these issues above.
* logo - that blastid LOGO. Logo away doesn't really work well, but I am
an experienced user of filtering, encoding etc. And, I do have my method
of so called, removing it w/out issues... however, it doesn't work on all
footage. But i'll keep this technque a secret, as I need to have SOME secrets,
you know? I'll leave that up to you to figure out for yourselves, just as I had to figure out HOW to get CCE to work in my setup, with a WHOLE lot of sweat
and greaf... and months, and months of it SOO NOT working for me. Finally!
Feww! Yes, you gotta work hard at some things to get where you want to go.
I had to do for myself here.

satstorm,
One thing we all need, is a standard and consistancy when we are judging
for quality, etc. I noticed that a lot will say, "mine came out perfect"
or "sharper than..." or "really blocky..." etc. BUT, if we had the same
"source material" to test NEW templates and/or enocding methods, we could
get a better more accurate "JUDGEing" going on.
So, until we all settle on a "source material" we ALL can use in a NEW
testing of whatever, you and I and others will continue to read such examples
as I laid out above.
For example, the topic is CVD So, why don't we settle on a standard ie.
If we set a standard source to use in the testing of this NEW format (not
that it's new, mind you) to say, something like this:
New CVD Format... to test for yourself, use the following:
* SOURCE: DVD
* Movie: Spaceballs
* Encoders: TMPG (though some tests prove better using CCE)
* MODE: 2pass (though CQ_VBR produced ok results via TMPG)
* other stuff to add here

Add whatever is missing or should be encluded here above.

Hope some materials above could be useful. Later all.
-vhelp

[mediamonk]

hi
i really like the cvd format,but i have a major problem.most dvd's i convert are PAL.when i encode at svcd resolution everything looks good but when i try cvd or vcd resolutions the encode has terrible combing(interlace type)effect.this is more pronounced on pc monitor but still shows up when played through my DVD player.this is driving me nuts as i would really like to do all my encodes in cvd so i have dvd compliant movies.i have tried everything to fix it but nothing helps.can anyone suggest why this is happening at cvd res but not svcd res.i thing it has something to do with having one field discarded but i don't have any idea why.

[adam]

SatStorm, well I definitely consider my tv mainstream since it is neither too old nor too new, too cheap nor too expensive.

Anyway, we both realize that SVCD is inherantly sharper because of the higher resolution. Whether or not you can actually see the difference depends largely on your hardware and probably even more on your eyes but I do not think its fair to say they are equally sharp, even though to the majority of people it will appear that way. Like you said, any filters you can use on a CVD you can also use on a SVCD and actually sharpening filters are a whole other monster. Sharpening filters really don't sharpen the picture at all they just give the appearance of sharpness and they actually do it in a totally artificial way. Read here to see what I'm talking about. http://www.100fps.com/codec_quality_comparison.htm

With that said, I love sharpen filters and use them regularly even on flawless sources. I highly recommend the "unfilter" avisynth filter. I also use the half D1 resolution of CVD more often than 480x480.