VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4
FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 91 to 119 of 119
Thread
  1. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    NOTE: OK, after re-reading this, Please don't see this as a CCE vs. TMPG.
    This isn't about which is better, but just my experience with CCE finally
    working, yeah!


    CCE, (again, based on Captured SOURCE, not DVD ripping)

    Ok, I thought I'd make my last post here for this night - ben up late working
    w/ it.

    I've so far, am not pleased w/ the quality (though still no audio, it's not a big
    deal) I find that TMPG is showing better quality output.

    I noticed that CCE has the 16-235 color range vs. 0-255, and I've used both, and I
    find that the 16-235 is the better choise, as the colors are as they were/are in
    the source, but using the 0-255 range, it's just too contrasted, and blacks
    look like they've ben pressed too hard. TMPGs' default color (w/out using color
    filters in tmpg's advanced tab) finer or slightely better.

    Anoying video FF/pause/play, FF/pause/play, etc. I don't mean it play one frame
    fast then pause then play, what I mean is it literally FF 5 to 10 frames, then
    pause 1 frame or so and then plays 1 or 2 frames and starts process over again
    till end of video. Again, forget about the audio isssie for now. Though, this
    funny video jerkness may be due to the audio. However, I've turned off the audio
    part [x] unchecked and this still happens.

    Yes, I realize that I'm basically a beginner in CCE, but that is NOT the excuse I
    should get from you's that have ben using it for much longer than I. Things like
    the above issues should not be happening in such an expensive encoder!! period!!
    I would expect TMPG to be like this, but find it the other way round. I for one,
    at this time, and based on my so called limited expereinece with CCE would NOT want
    to spend the 2K it is all cracked up to be. I mean, for 2K, you better work the
    first time!! And, without problems. Again, I consider myself pretty experienced,
    but just because I'm now using (trying out [trial version]) another encoder doesn't
    mean that "well, it's because you're a newbie" hogwash! I serious ly doublt that
    the manual (though not D/L'able) would be as detail in encoding example or too,
    especially w/ an already andvanced/experienced user in the encoding/video area.

    I will continue to test CCE out, but for what it's worth at the moment, and w/ my
    1st actual experience (a good 8 or so hours, just this evening alone) it's not a
    good score. I did many, many <1 minute encodes so that I could get quicker results
    vs. waiting hours, just for 1 or 2 tests. I've ran close to a hundred tests this
    evening. So, believe me, I'm no dummy, and I've tried, if my may say so, ALL the
    various settings, but still plauged by the audio issue and the FF/ issie I laid out
    above. The only thing I didn't do any testing w/ was in the [Advanced] button/ dialog box area. This didn't need my fiddleing around at this time. This area is
    deffinately for the more advanced CCE users, not me.

    Oh, the one thing I did notice about the FF/ issie was that it happend only in
    WinDVD 3.0, but in PowerDVD, the video played smoothly, bug of course, w/out
    audio. Again, not a problem at this time, but still is.

    Tomorrow, I will do a google.com and then some, search on obtaining the CCE manual
    for D/L. That is, if there is such a D/L. Cause, it may not be allowed by
    CineCraft. But, I'll give it a search anyways

    Ok, another note, I think, again, based on my limited knowledge w/ CCE at this
    time, that TMPG is better to an extent, or based on the bitrate(s) and MODE I used
    in my testing (CQ) that TMPG showed better quality then CCE. These are the values
    I used in CCE, which is another reason why I was dissapointed:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Source: Satalite Capture of "Star Trek"
    * MODE: VBR av1900 x mn600 x mx2520, as they would appear in the boxes.
    * 3 passes
    * DC: 9
    * 16-235 and 0-255 color range
    * Video: [x]add seq enc code
    * Video: [x] upper field first AND [] unchecked as well
    * Video: [x] progressive frames
    * Video: [x] Linear quan...
    * Video: [x] Aizzag scann...
    * DAR: 4:3
    * GOP: 3,5
    * AUDIO: 160k w/ Stero AND also jointStero
    Other than the above for CCE, there's not much more than that that requires a
    rocket engineer to use, given my knowledge of encoding to VCD/SVCD/CVD in the past.

    Ok, in comparison to above vs. TMPG:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    * MODE: CQ mx1450 / mn600 / [x] padding on
    * 1 pass
    * DC: 9
    * GOP: 3,5
    * AUDIO: 160k w/ Stero AND also jointStero

    And, quality to me, was better.
    So, I'm a bit stumped, as to why, even though I did use a much higher value bitrate
    in CCE, did TMPG come out better??

    Welp, that's it for me, for now.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  2. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    Hi,
    @ Adam. Yes, I know how those sharpness filters work. It is like sharping VHS tapes on your VCR. Anyway, there are good filters..
    And make 352 X 576 look SO good!

    @ Vhelp: CCE is better TMPGenc, unfortunatelly... I hope TMPGenc turn better one day, but I don't hope turn faster...

    @ Martyn1980: I already captured all the videos of VH1 Classic for 2002. The playlists gonna change again in 5 months. The transmission from Sky Digital sucks, thanks god there is an alternative: On astra 1G (19.2 East) there is a Viacom package with many MTV/VH1 channels. I recieve them, de-scrable them (they both use Viaccess 1, Seca 1 and Cryptoworks the same time, Viaccess and Seca are hacked long time ago...) and capture the direct stream to my PC. The quality is not DVD like, it is far lower. It is natural in way: Most of the Videos come from NTSC videotapes, converted to Pal. They suck....
    Anyway, I convert all those videos to 352 X 288 xSVCD with an average 1200kb/s and they look almost like the transmission, but in so low filesize. I end up with 19 videoclips per CD. Till now, I have 30 xSVCDs with 80s, 15 xSVCDs with 70s, 6 xSVCDs with 60s and about 10 - 12 with '90s. Ain't bad and looks fine. VHS like....
    If you have satellite reception and you want to built a videoclip collection, then turn to Hotbirds and recieve the German Channel Onyx TV and the Italian Magic TV. They both play really good classics, most of the times never shown from Viacom channels (and UK in Generall). A good alternative is also the MCM2 french channel, but it is encrypted in seca 1. It is still hackable, but not for long!
    Good alternatives also are MTV India (The night hours plays only Retro music but ain't easily receptable in UK) and MTV Classic ( a new channel from Polland, amazing, not hackable any more, needs low cost subscription from Polland by using a fake andress and a credit card)
    Quote Quote  
  3. Yes, MCM Euromusic always was a good channel - used to get it with my squariel after BSB closed!!

    The worst DSat quality I ever saw was on Tuesday on Arte on Astra 19 degrees. Although the signal strength/error rate was fine the picture (a PAL source) was dreadful. About as good as standard VHS! and it wasn't the programme, the whole output was the same. The quality of Sky Digital is crap, but still a damn sight better than Arte.
    However I am holding off for a couple of months until the Beeb get the new DTT service operational and then getting a Hauppage Nova-t card and grabbing the raw bitstream onto my hard drive and converting that. Should yield better quality results than capturing.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    VHelp, there are other ways to remove that logo in CCE without the use of filters, and the name Tsunami is in it, it just depends if your willing to go down that route.

    The quality thing is yet again a personal thing, the thing that turned me onto CCE was the colors, i dont like the color Tmpeg produces too artificial in my opinion, i cant really compare as you are using DV and most of my sources are DVD so i can really do any tests, dont use the audio in CCE is shit and cant decode anything complicated, if im not using DVD2SVCD then i use Tmpeg with toolame to do the audio, and i think that it is a bug, mpv files dont play too well in WinDVD, but play ok in PowerDVD, i usually use Power DVD anyway it gives a better breakdown of the Mpg anyway, and a bitrate meter.

    Satstorm, i might give capturing a go soon just need the cash to get myself a good card, but until then im gonna read up on it so i should know a bit by the time i get it, thanks for answering.

    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Israel
    Search Comp PM
    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 via analog video and audio inputs, VirtualDub and its timer with 480x576 resolution, 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). Well, on some movies I have to do 3 CDs per movie.

    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 coding MPG-2, 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 - less blockiness per given bitstream without any noticeable decrease in sharpness.

    Thank you SatStorm, actually all here, and VCD Help for making this information available.

    Be Blessed.
    Quote Quote  
  6. This topic should be re-named to "CVD - Your Trials & Frustrations!"

    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.
    Quote Quote  
  7. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    No double posts please!

    This is a copy paste from the other post:

    Drag & Drop?
    There are no such things in our hobby....
    Go DVD2SVCD if you want some kind of automation....

    CVD make the difference for video not audio. You gonna have that kind of problems all the time with the audio.
    The Higher (not highest possible) compatibillity of CVD, is only for the Video part of the mpeg 2 file
    Quote Quote  
  8. JSquare,
    I have made many, many 352 x 480 videos onto DVD. I use DVDMaestro to author them, although I've used SpruceUp and had it work fine as well. I can't explain why it "hangs" on you. Are you using 1.0 or 1.1 SpruceUp - i used 1.1....

    The only thing annoying about 352 x 480 is that you can't do anamorphic DVDs with it (at least, Pioneer and Apex players don't do the 16:9 -> 4:3 conversion if you try).

    It's also a little wierd on chapter stops - when you skip to the next chapter, you see a picture that's only on the left half of the screen for a second, then the player realizes it needs to double the picture, and it expands to fill the whole screen....
    Quote Quote  
  9. VidGuy

    I solved the problem by modifying the TMPGEnc DVD template for CVD. It seems like the problem was with the Stream Type, I had it for SVCD instead of MPEG-2 Program (VBR).
    My Apex AD-600A won't read DVD+RW and I will give it a try once I burn it to an DVD+R, I'll let you know if I get the same kind of problems you're getting with the chapters.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Did you try to re-mux your CVD file? Sounds like that would be all that's needed here. De-mux and then remux as MPEG2 Program VBR.
    Quote Quote  
  11. After reading the CVD guide in this site I tested & compared CVD -vs- SVCD. The source was a sport game recorded in VHS, captured with the pass through of my Sony TRV27 dvcam, then encoded from the DV AVI file to CVD 352x480 VBR 2520, sound stereo 224kbit/s 44,100Hz using DVD moviefactory.

    Barely can see any diferences in the quality. Fast action is pixelated in SVCD and better looking in CVD. The only negative thing is when the camera shot is from a long distance you can notice pixelation around the players.

    Another thing, when playing back the CVD on my JVC 302 DVD sometimes it change speed like a X2 fast forward. I needed to press pause and then resume for the CVD to run at normal speed.

    I will continue testing & if i found anything else I will post here the results.

    * any tip is welcome.
    Quote Quote  
  12. ok guys, im sorry but what exactly is CVD? i read the what is CVD post, but still dont understand it. i mean is it a Special type of media? or is it just a CD-r? is it just a CDR with different standards [ resolution, bitrate, etc]?? thanks
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    jedi,

    fewww, I've had an exhausting day at work!

    noop. it's just yet, another format we've given a new too. Actually,
    it's ben around, just not called CVD until recently. That's
    all.
    * its not a new media
    * its not a new cd-r or what-have-ya
    * it's not whatever else.

    * in its most ancient state, it was refered to as xSVCD cause the
    format was different, ie 352x480 vs. standard SVCD format 480x480,
    and 48k audio instead of SVCD's 44k, etc.
    And, as SatStorm said/wrote detail'wise on page one, that's
    all it is. But, it's not too magical about it.

    If properly done (encoded) w/ a GOOD source, ie DVD or good satalite
    capture, CVD can be an excellent alternative to SVCD.
    Too much noise, and less control of it, will require you to adjust
    or raise your bitrate higher than required in order to maintain a
    good overall quality w/ minimal of blocks. But, my guess is that too
    people are using crummy video source on it, and hence the poor results
    with CVD.

    I've use CVD for a number of my VHS encodes - what can I say,
    video encoding is my hobby, and as such, I don't mind the re-capturing
    and encoding process all over again. The trick w/ VHS (as my source)
    is NOT to FF/RW a lot (at all) rather, just press play and capture
    complete, or in 1/2 hour increments (to rule out audio synch issues)
    and upon completetion, immediately store VHS back into it's cool
    place (usually in bottom of my bedroom closet) Anyways, this is what
    I've ben using CVD for, as well as for my Satalite DirecTV
    captures too. But, even now, as we (I) spead/write this, I'm using
    an altered variation (call it xCVD, but I won't) by raising
    my resolution from 352x480 to 720x480. I guess you could really call
    it xDVD instead, since my bitrate is MUCH lower than the DVD spec
    of 9.8k bitrate, vs. my current aprox 2520k bitrate. Yes, that's
    right, 2520k. But, I'm experimenting on this, so don't pick on me
    just yet

    But, for the most part, my CVD are just that. . .
    * Bitrate: 2520 ..... (or less)
    * Mode: CQ 2520/600, or CQ_VBR 2520/600, or 2pass 2010/600/2520
    * Resolution: 352x480 .....
    * Audio: 48k ..... (those w/ DVD player problems, change to 44k) but
    wont be as DVD compliant
    I hope I got everything down in the above list correctly.

    Anyway, since my Source is usually pretty clean (asside from the VHS
    which I use a good "filter chain" for cleaning out noies) CVD
    works VERY well, as others here have expressed. (well, except those
    that it did for, reasons being ie, DVD player, or source quality,
    or their method/process from start to finish)

    Just remember this, when you create a CVD and play it on your
    pc monitor, this is where people claim that it isn't as sharp as
    their 480x480 SVCD counterpart. But, that is obvious. Because their
    SVCD has slightly higher resolution. But, DON'T let CVD scare
    you in thinking that it will NOT be as sharp. Cause IT WILL BE! . . .
    on your TV set that is. TV is approx 352x480 resolution, and as such,
    your SVCD's will be scaled down to 352x480 to match your TV res.
    That's why SVCD and CVD both look the same on a TV. Only when
    it comes to pc monitor is their a slight difference in quality, cause
    your monitor (most likely) will be 1024x768 resolution.

    jedi,
    I hope that you trials w/ CVD is a good one. Follow the above
    as a guide, and/or on page 1 of this thread, and cross your fingers
    as to your final CVD quality.

    Hope I've ben helpful.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member xzarkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Netherlands
    Search Comp PM
    Burn it as a SVCD and not as a VCD. Turn off standard compliance
    The Dutchman
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Just to clarify some things in vhelp's otherwise excellent post...

    CVD never was, nor was it ever referred to as an xSVCD. CVD PREDATES SVCD. CVD movies were manufactured and distributed long before the SVCD specs were even finalized. CVD is not a non-standard version of anything, it is a standardized format with mandatory hardware support on all SVCD compatible players. Its been here longer than SVCD, and has been quite popular in China its just that not many people in American have known about it until now, but the same could also be said for SVCD.

    Also CVD's do NOT use 48kHz audio. They use 44100kHz audio just like SVCDS.

    Many people choose to encode their audio at 48kHz instead since both 48kHz audio and 352x480/576 comply with the dvd standard, thereby making their disk future dvd compatible. BUT if you are encoding mpeg2 at 352x480 with audio at 48kHz and burning on cdr/w media you are NOT making a CVD, you are making a non-standard version of it. Call it an xCVD or an xSVCD if you want, it does not matter because hardware support is not guaranteed.

    A 4:3 Tv's resolution is not 352x480 its 640x480. Both SVCDs and CVDs are scaled up to 640x480 when you watch them. The picture is physically stetched, though the aspect ratio is preserved. Its true that a CVD's resolution is only slightly smaller than SVCD's but when stretched to fit the screen the difference becomes slightly more apparant. Most people won't notice a difference in sharpness during casual viewing, but its defintely there and if you look hard enough you'll probably be able to see it, I know I do. Also even though the resolution is only slightly smaller, it actually makes a big difference with aliasing. Look at diagonals such as people's shoulders or their noses during a profile shot. You may see a staircase effect. Personally, on my setup I don't really notice it much but on some dvd players it might make the movie unwatchable.

    All SVCD compatible dvd players are required to also support CVD's. Besides slight differences regarding the naming of files, the only real difference between CVD and SVCD is the resolution. All other parameters regarding bitrate, framerate, GOP structure, and audio are identical. For all intents and purposes its easier to just say that the SVCD format also supports 352x480/576 as a resolution. Technically this is not true, but as far as the hardware is concerned it might as well be.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    evening adam and others,

    >> Just to clarify some things in vhelp's otherwise excellent post...

    >> CVD never was, nor was it ever referred to as an xSVCD. CVD PREDATES
    >> SVCD. CVD movies were manufactured and distributed long before the
    >> SVCD specs were even finalized.
    adam, I was refering to how people used xSVCD (as I have) but w/ CVD
    specs, but NOT calling or refering to it AS CVD! That was what
    I ment when I said:
    >>->> * in its most ancient state, it was refered to as xSVCD cause the
    >>->> format was different, ie 352x480 vs. standard SVCD format 480x480,
    Sorry I misled you, he,he...
    It's when I started reading posts here-and-there, that I started to
    realise that what I was making was CVD all along (well, maybe minus the
    48K audio) Then, if you noticed in my posts from time to time, and
    BEFORE SatStorms started thread, I was making refereing to CVD
    instead of xSVCD for my encodes.

    >> Also CVD's do NOT use 48kHz audio. They use 44100kHz audio just like
    >> SVCDS
    Yes, you're right! I may ave actually fell pray to this fact, and claimed
    that 48k belongs to CVD, when it doesn't. But, that 48k is to meet
    DVD compliancy. So, I appoligies there, if I made reference in this
    statement!

    >> A 4:3 Tv's resolution is not 352x480 its 640x480. Both SVCDs and
    >> CVDs are scaled up to 640x480 when you watch them. The picture is
    >> physically stetched, though the aspect ratio is preserved.
    Hmmm! This one confuses me. I thought people refered TV's resolution
    as being 352x240. And, when I stated that I TV is APPROX 352x480,
    I was hoping to actually be correct cause of the SHARPness that it
    produces with 352x480 or anything that is x480!!
    I am hoping that you or anyone else here, can ELABORATE a bit more on
    this TV 640x480 resolution!!!!! ...so that I can properly refer to
    the resolution correctly in future posts, he,he...
    In any case, this would seem to confirms my current 720x480 endeavors
    in my latest encoding hobby.

    Have a good evening.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Ok you may have stumbled upon the CVD standard while making what you thought were xSVCDs but those are just your personal experiences and don't really say anything about the format itself. Myself, I learned about CVD and SVCD both in the same day not long after they were released. I've been using both ever since.

    Maybe you are thinking of broacast resolution which is about 320x240, I don't know, but the maximum display resolution of an ntsc tv is 640x480 and for pal its 800x600. The tv's have a 4:3 aspect ratio so if your CVD is encoded in 4:3 aspect ratio it will be stretched to fit the whole screen. It is essentially being displayed at about 640x480 resolution on an ntsc tv. If you want to verify this as being the display resolution of a 4:3 tv then just do a web search, its documented all over the place.
    Quote Quote  
  18. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    Adam, you talking about TV on PC monitors, right?
    Because the analogue broadcast of PAL and NTSC are well known: 720 X 576/480.
    Those resolutions are overscanned on TVs, so the true active window, is somehow smaller. For Pal for example, is 704 X 544 I think

    A typical television is capable to show with detail, the 3/5 of this resolution, new televisions with big screens even slighty more.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Yes indeed, TV display resolution is NOT the same as computer display resolution, as anyone who has tried to connect a TV out to a TV will soon realise! 800x600 will NOT display correctly on a TV screen.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by adam
    Just to clarify some things in vhelp's otherwise excellent post...

    CVD never was, nor was it ever referred to as an xSVCD. CVD PREDATES SVCD. CVD movies were manufactured and distributed long before the SVCD specs were even finalized. CVD is not a non-standard version of anything, it is a standardized format with mandatory hardware support on all SVCD compatible players. Its been here longer than SVCD, and has been quite popular in China its just that not many people in American have known about it until now, but the same could also be said for SVCD.

    Also CVD's do NOT use 48kHz audio. They use 44100kHz audio just like SVCDS.

    Many people choose to encode their audio at 48kHz instead since both 48kHz audio and 352x480/576 comply with the dvd standard, thereby making their disk future dvd compatible. BUT if you are encoding mpeg2 at 352x480 with audio at 48kHz and burning on cdr/w media you are NOT making a CVD, you are making a non-standard version of it. Call it an xCVD or an xSVCD if you want, it does not matter because hardware support is not guaranteed.
    ...
    So if you took a 352x480 mpeg2 stream and paired it with 48khz
    audio and burned it to cd... would that be miniDVD?
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    i just stumbled upon this post again, thought it was closed but is there really that much difference between the Pal and NTSC specifications, i knew there was a difference, and i guessed it would be 640x480 as that it what console game resolution is, if what your saying is true Adam and it probably is as you seem very knowledgable at this, you and Satstorm both do, been on this Forum 2 years, i didn't start all this till February but i learn very quickly.

    What i was thinking was, with the increased resolution of the DVD and the TV Pal DVD's must look a lot better, i only have one NTSC DVD and its a 40 year old film,so i cant really comment, but VCD's and CVD must look much worse, due to the higher resolution on a Pal TV and such a low bitrate, if i watch a VCD on here i change the resolution to 640x480.

    I was under the impression the resolution for Digital TV was a maximum of 720x576/480, but very rarely reached that, i have no idea what Anologue TV is broadcast at, but isnt that what Adam said when he mentioned broadcast quality at 352x240, sorry for joining in again but i just wanted to get a few things clarified.

    Quote Quote  
  22. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Afternoon Adam and other,

    first, I want to clarify. . .
    * I am refering to a TV's actual display resolution, NOT what is being
    AIRed from the stations, hence whatever they are AIRing's SOURCE
    resolution.

    Now, ASSUMing that if I understood Adam's 640x480 tv resolution to be
    true, then. . .
    * I have the feeling that those stations or entities that AIR tv programs
    are, that their SOURCE materials that they show, are of various
    resolutions. But, that when we FINALY are able to view it on our TVs,
    say, 13" (in my case) though my 13" is say, 640x480 resolution, the
    broadcasters SOURCE material resolution is probably say, 720x480. And,
    in other broadcasters SOURCE materials, it could be 480x480 for this
    tv program while 352x480 in another, and yet 720x480 in a NEW special
    tv series like Farscape for instance.

    That about sums up my theory on:
    * Broadcasters SOURCE materials resolution
    * my 13" TV's resolution is 352x480 else I don't know what it is yet.

    Or else, I need to know (for sure) WHAT:
    * my 13" TV resolution really is? ? ?
    * HDTV's ACTUAL display resolution is (not broadcasters source materis's res)

    Else, for now on, I'll continue to state my 13" TV (and other's) resolution
    is actually 352x480 ! ! !
    So, until I'm told (corrected) othewise, I'll continue w/ the statment of
    352x480 res.

    thanks all.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    No I wasn't referring to pc monitor's at all, I was just mistaken. I confused lines of resolution with resolution. I thought that since broadcast tv has ~320 lines of resolution that, that meant its horizontal resolution was 320 and that with a 4:3 aspect ratio that would give you a resolution of 320x240. I also read this on several sites and took it as fact. Sorry my mistake.

    vhelp your tv's resolution cannot be 352x480 because that does not have a 4:3 aspect ratio. A tv's display resolution is really calculated by lines of resolution, so its hard to say that a tv has a certain resolution. It is commonly stated though that the max resolution of an ntsc 4:3 tv is equivalent to 640x480. The reason for this is that the ntsc standard is obviously 720x480 but this doesn't have a 4:3 aspect ratio either. When played on your 4:3 tv it is basically squished to fit your screen which gives you a resolution of about 640x480, which does have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Read about it here, http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,68959,00.asp

    Your 352x480 non-standard CVD doesnt have a 4:3 aspect ratio either. It will be scaled up to 640x480 also, though I think the amount that is is actually stretched does depend on the size of your tv. There's no doubt about it that the smaller your tv is the less your going to notice differences in the resolution of your source. My point was simply that CVD's do have to be stretched more than svcds to fit your screen and to adhere to the 4:3 aspect ratio. This makes artifacts more apparant and leads to more alising issues.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by incognito
    So if you took a 352x480 mpeg2 stream and paired it with 48khz
    audio and burned it to cd... would that be miniDVD?
    MiniDVD is one of those ambigous terms like xVCD that really defies definition, so I guess it really depends. I define miniDVD as a "DVD on cd media." So by this definition no this would not be a miniDVD because its not written in UDF format and does not use the DVD's filestructure.

    Call it what you want but I think its best described as a non-standard CVD.
    Quote Quote  
  25. It may be a non standard CVD format but it is a standard DVD format (1/2DVD if sound is 48Khz).


    I have been capturing of TV and converting some old VHS tape.

    Capture at High Quality DVD with ATI AIW (MMC 7.7)
    Use TMPGENC to edit out commercials and convert to 352x480 (2pass VBR with max bit rate at 2520).

    Burn with Moviefactory (and add some into menu items )

    The end result is that when replaying on the TV there are no significant different between burning the using the high quality DVD VS the 1/2 DVD format. Of course this is not surprising since the source data is no better than the 1/2 DVD format.

    I get close to 4 hours on a DVD doing this. Sometimes i have to modifiy the bit rate slightly to get a full 4 hours.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Hello all. This may sound silly, but I have no experience with CVD, but I want to give it a try. I am going to use the dvd2svcd guide for creating a cvd to see if I like it better than SVCD. My silly question is this: I have downloaded a pal cvd, how do I convert it to NTSC? This is a breeze when I create a vcd/svcd, but I am not sure what I need to do for a cvd, if anything.
    I like to use cce for my dvd rips, and TMPEGnc for my avi to vcd/svcd conversions. For this project I would like to use TMPEGnc if possible.

    Thanks for your time, and I apologize if this has been asked before. I did a search, but did not find anything specific for pal to ntsc.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Behind the wheel of a R34
    Search Comp PM
    hehe, Ive had my share with CVD and its my standard format.
    I managed to create a template of CVD and I called it Omega CVD... The reason being is that it produces about 120.00mb per minute and looks better than a DVD (note, this isnt just rasing the bitrate), and as you can tell, IT TAKES ALOT OF SPACE... thats why I don't use it....much.
    I have also made a template called SuperCVD and produces 53.11 mb per second on CG Anmimation and with a couple of other options. DVD still looks better but this is the best that I can do with out using a DVD disc. But thats my history with CVD.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Search Comp PM
    I just want to register my vote. I've played with CVD, but still mainly use SVCD. Why...

    Resolution. I have had no problem turning my analog 720x480 captured into complaint SVCD's without noticable blocking. I DO have a TV that can show the faults in SVCD resolution easly. CVD's I can easy pick out individual pixels if I look closely ( not macroblocks, pixels ).

    I use CCE exclusivly for my SVCD's since it's output on interlaced mpeg-2 is better than TMPGenc. With proper tuning and guessing I can get most things encoded with a one pass vbr that looks almost identical to the source. The thing I have seen more than anything else is people misusing CCE's settings. The image complexity setting has to be close to 5 to do SVCD, and NR is helpful on noisy sources.

    For those times when size or runtime is more important than resolution I use CVD. It's a descent trade off between loss of resolution and runtime.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member WinSpirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Computers room
    Search Comp PM
    Hi everybody :P

    Just a little question:

    I have some movies in 320x240, 280x176, .... To make SVCD, i'm just add black borders to resize to 480x480. ( I've earn that is not a good idea to resize a movie because a loss of quality). It play well on my tv screen.

    So, if i want to convert these movies to CVD,i can't do that because the screen is stretched horizontally when i play it on tv.

    How to fit non-standard movie size to CVD? There is a mathematical rule?

    Thanks to all

    W/S
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads