The poll above ^^^ Why is VCD winning, I thought that SVCD

[next]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-22 14:42:52, thxkid wrote:
Simple VCD on a 36in or bigger Screen, sucks, while SVCD looks good and sharp with very little or no artifacts.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

It looks really bad on a 32in as well. At least on mine. My SVCD (480x480) looks similiar to digital cable. I've got an A/V switch box and when switching between the two its tough to tell the difference. That would never be true with VCD at 352x240 1.15 mps. No way. Not even close. No contest. No cigar.

edit -

And I should add that my SVCD's are a simple real time capture to mpeg2 480x480. No subsequent encoding. Just capture, cut, and burn (well actually I do a quick demux/mux to an SVCD program stream which takes minutes).

When Adam says that most don't take full advantage of SVCD he is SO RIGHT. I simply choose speed and simplicity and am happy with my results.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: next on 2001-08-22 15:01:44 ]</font>

[thxkid]

The problem here is we need to compare these to formats and the different bitrates not on all these 15 to 19 in computer monitors but on 36in TV's or even 52 projection screens.
I know I have and let me tell you VCD is not even watchable at 1150 bitrate on 52inches, it passes ok when I crank the bitrate up to 2520.
SVCD does not look as good as DVD but at least as good as SVHS and fairly close to DVD, its as sharp but you get very small amount of artifacts. But at 2520 compared to DVD's 7000, you should be able to tell the difference.
If MPEG1 was all that great then why did satelite companies go with MPEG2, remember when direct TV use to be MPEG1, looked bad!
Going from AVI to MPEG1 is so much easier than SVCD.
Thats why I bought a PCI MPEG2 card, so I can bypass the encoding of AVI and my PVR from happauge works flawless.

[supercrew]

I always go with:

Home Videos: (XVCD) because you don't need more than 352 X 240 for NTSC
video off camcorder and the extra bitrate make fast motion
scenes artifact free.
*** Besides: I can't look at more than ~40 worth of video I
shot at anyone time without getting bored ***

Dvd Movies: (SVCD) because you maintain more of the detail that the filmmaker
spent a lot of money on we the movie was shot.

Also using (3) pass with CCE creates a super image using the
available bitrate in the SxVCD range so you can usually get
a movie on (2) disks.

Also, I have noticed that the new DVD players are able to play alot of offspec
Mpeg1/2 material.

Supercrew

[Anonymous65]

There are two different kinds of people talking here, one group, using large screen monitors (more than 32&quot and want DVD quality. Most of these people rip DVD's.
The other group, the regular TV viewer with a TV set smaller then 32", and use VHS for their movie collection, and have just gotten a DVD player.

Now, for the seconds group, where I find myself, VCD makes the most sense. For the ones striving to get DVD quality from a DVD source, a SVCD is obviously a better solution. Many people claim a SVCD looks just as good as the ripped DVD, which I believe is correct. However, for the ones that want to transfer their home VHS movies to CD, I would still go with VCD over SVCD!

[thxkid]

I have read all the posts here and I have to set back and giggle a little, because its the VHS vs. Beta wars all over again. just kinda cute.
But serious now, if you people out there that say VCD is as good or at least no different than SVCD, that would like you saying that there is now difference between VHS and SVHS quality.
The 2 CD vs 3 CD's problem, can cure alot of that headache by using the new 99min. CD-R's at Compusa. I have fit alot of what would have been 3 CD's onto 2 CD's with these new CD-R's.

[thxkid]

skittelsen hit the nail on the head, 2 different types of people out here, the ones that do SVCD have 32in or larger screens, use SVHS in SP mode only or HI-8mm camcorders have 2 or more DVD players, have dishnetwork satellite, so we are looking for the best we can egt out of the video media.
Now for the VCD people, 27 in or smaller screens, own 1 DVD player, own $60 VHS recorder, record always on 6 hour(EP) mode. So when they are used to this quality of video source then a VCD will look more than fine.
Granted when I make my Family home video's and edit them it is much easier to use the VCD format from AVI. But forget the standard 1150 bitrate, I crank it up to 2520 and use the same settings as SVCD but tweak it so NERO still reads it as a standard VCD.

[Nomadxjl]

Do those 99 min cd's work with all burners, or only some burners?

[KoalaBear]

There ya go!

Now *this* is a discussion. Thanks everyone for helping us put the train back on the track. The last thing I want to participate in is a "Wintel vs. Macintosh," "Windows NT vs. OS/2," "Boxers vs. Briefs" type of tit-for-tat debate that doesn't really benefit anybody. As the beer commercial taught us, some beverages can be "Less Filling" AND "Taste Great."

When I make a VCD, it's usually from VHS because I'm interested in preserving stuff that will likely never be released on DVD. This stuff almost by definition requires heavy pre-encode signal processing that takes many, many hours beyond sheer encode time to produce. What I want to end up with, and learned eventually how to make, are video discs that are as close to commercial quality as I can possibly get. The very best of them look better than the tapes that they came from. This isn't the result of an accident or a lucky break, it's because I did my homework and worked very hard to achieve the results that I got.

Is this the road to enlightenment for everybody? Probably not. Most people *say* they're interested in getting the best quality their equipment can possibly deliver, but when they learn just how laborious and time-consuming that goal really is, their quality standards drop like the proverbial lead balloon. What most of them are really interested in is how to get the best result with the least amount of effort, which is a valid objective in itself, but hardly the same thing.

Now, obviously, this is a conversation and not a PhD dissertation, so I shouldn't have to support every statement I make with a footnote and references. And neither should anybody else. But the idea that the SVCD spec was intended more to achieve political rather than practical objectives isn't a conspiracy theory I invented to rationalize why I think the format sucks, it's old news. Take a look
here and here for statements on both sides of the issue.

SVCD is only one of several "next generation" VCD formats considered by the Chinese government, along with CVD and VCD-HQ. The fact that it was chosen over the others is not an endorsement of it's quality any more than the fact we happened to end up with VHS is proof that it's technically superior to Betamax.

[next]

Okay I'm out of here.

Now its encoding from old VHS tapes that drives the SVCD format into the mud. Mix in the Chineese government, who by the way doesn't have the market cornered on the mpeg2 format, and what do you get? Well I'm not sure but I think it's just short of Dr. No.

Well I'm going to council with the Man from U.N.C.L.E and let you know how he feels. Or better yet - Agent 99.

Have fun kids.

[adam]

Its not a matter of two different kinds of people, its a matter of two different kinds of sources. If your source is vhs, tv capture, or other low quality film then OF COURSE the svcd isnt going to look better than the vcd. The vcd format supports quality levels that already surpass your source so you've already realized your maximum quality.

But this does not mean that vcd quality is just as good as svcd quality. If your source is low quality than vcd is the obvious choice, not because its better than svcd but because in this situation svcd is overkill.

Both formats have their obvious advantages and disadvantages and they are highly dependant upon HOW you are using them and most of all WHAT your source is.

[Nomadxjl]

well of course if your encoding from VHS your gonna use VCD. But if your going from DVD then obviously your gonna make SVCD IF you want picture quality that goes beyond what they had in the 1960's

[Horrorking]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-22 15:54:05, Nomadxjl wrote:
Do those 99 min cd's work with all burners, or only some burners?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

No, they do not work in all burners, nor do they work in all stand alone DVD players. Actually, I tried a little test last time I was in Sydney (Yeah, I'm in Oz) - I took a standard VCD on a 650 & the same VCD burnt to a 700MB CD and played it in about 11 players. 3 had problems reading the 700MB CD, but no problems with the 650.

Maybe it was the type of CD used, but then again...

David

[Sefy]

I Doubt anyone will change anyone's opinion's here, those who prefer VCD's will keep on using them, and those who prefer SVCD's will keep on using those, I'd say if you REALLY want quality, and you are not willing to "suffer" the low quality of a VCD, then since most DVD prices have dropped, buy the movie! i've bought every movie that I knew I was going to watch it quite alot and quality was important to me.

VCD/SVCD and all other formats, each has it's own uses, it's a lost debate what is better, you must also consider the fact, that it's not JUST the format that can give bad quality, but ALOT of the equipment can also cause it, like cabels, and the decoder and even the TV, personaly I find anything on Back Projection TV's to be the worst quality ever, but that's me, not you or anyone else propably.

Same reason some people prefer a Pioneer DVD player over a noname, because the DVD player can also have a say in the quality issue, as well as your TV, so it might not look good to you, but on diffrent equipment it might look better, not everyone has a 36"+ TV set, and not everyone has the most expensive DVD or HiFi system.

Plain and simple:
VideoCD - Easy to make, requires less time to make, decent quality, less discs required per movie
SuperVCD - Hard to make (for the regular user!), requires alot of time to make (not everybody has a Super Ultra Turbo PC), great quality, if you got the equipment that supports it, great for toilet breaks in the 1/3 quarters of the movie.
DVD - It's here people, some of you already got it, discussion is pointless from now on.

[pacmania_2001]

I used to create VCD's until I made an SVCD of M:I 2. The quality is near DVD quality and i dont mean that far off. There is not one block or artifact noticible. That is something i have yet to see on a VCD.

[PNPman]

Just wanted to say thanks to all of you.
I was starting to fall asleep sifting thru the posts in here for some relavent information. I found this thread a humorous distraction. Special thanks to you Next your
2001-08-23 03:39

" But you forgot to add "only when the cows come home". "

got me laughing pretty hard.

[AlanCake]

I find VCD far superior because it trips off your tongue so easily - V C D - Ohhhhh nice.

Anyway I off to have some cake

Alan

[thxkid]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-22 15:54:05, Nomadxjl wrote:
Do those 99 min cd's work with all burners, or only some burners?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Well The salesman at compusa told me that these would not work with my burner a HP 9100i 8x4x32. everyone I have tried has burned perfectly on my HP. Tried them on my sons Sony 8x4x32 burner worked fine also.
The packaging does say "works on some Burners".

[kinneera]

If you have the benefit of highly flexible DVD players or you intend to use for computer playback, it seems to me you can get some fairly amazing results with non-standard VCD, while still benefiting from the wider compatibility the format enjoys. I've been recently backing up DVDs onto non-standard VCD, and I've been able to fit entire movies onto 2 CDs at 720x480 and 2300 VBR. Granted, it's MPEG1, but ultimately the bitrate has the greatest impact. The ability to use variable bitrate with an MPEG1 makes it possible (in my experience) to produce at least SVCD quality video on a regular VCD. It looks great on the TV, and is even quite passable on a computer monitor at 1024x768 screen res...

Of course, it does take 13 hours of encoding + 2 hours of 48Khz to 44.1khz downsampling, on a PIII 800, but I guess that goes back the previous mentions of people's varying degrees of willingness to pursue the highest quality.

[kinneera]

On another note, it is my understanding that burners themselves do not care how much data you attempt to burn to a disc, just as long as it can keep finding available sectors on the disc to write to. The burning software, and the devices you attempt playback on however, are an entirely different matter...

[thxkid]

VCD, SVCD, DVD, MPEG1, MPEG2, Dishnetwork, Direct TV, TIVO they are Digital, which means compression, so its just how much compression you are willing to live with, I mean everyone raves on DVD quality, its even compressed some and as a Laser Disc owner, those 12 inch monsters steal beats DVD in picture and sound, NO compression on Laser Discs folks. But just like the Betamax, Far superior over any VHS, quality does not matter here but how popular the format is. Laser Disc and Betamax never caught on , VHS and DVD has, so if VCD catches on more than SVCD, it will join the ranks as beta and laser disc has.
Then again this will all be mute in a year or two when all of us will be using those chinese or korean DVD-R burners for $199.

[Sefy]

Couldn't agree with you more!! LaserDisc kills DVD in Quality!
All this compressed stuff is annoying! some high quality! what's the point for all this high quality stuff when regular TV's can't support it!

[PopUpVideo]

At the risk of triggering violent retorts on this passionate subject....

In my own experience, I have found that XVCD's, up to 2500 bitrate, keeping (NTSC) size at 352x240 plays in almost all DVD's made since late 1999....while my SVCD's seem to be much less compatible in various DVD players...even popular newer models.

In fact, XVCD with higher bitrates seems almost as compatible as standard VCD. Now, my family and friends comprise a sample of 8 different models, but they are the popular brands.

That being said, I mostly make XVCD's....but it's nice to have the option of making SVCD's, if I have smaller length production and want maximum quality.

Regards, -PUV

P.S. - I mostly play these XVCD's on a 36 inch TV.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PopUpVideo on 2001-08-23 05:28:21 ]</font>

[Nomadxjl]

kinneera, if you say one more time that XVCD looks as good as SVCD I'm gonna kill and eat your dog. The only thing I can figure is your TV has a terrible picture and your not seeing what SVCD really looks like, or you don't know how to make a SVCD right. What kind of dog do you have? A cat would be good too. I'm gonna try your 720x480 and 2300 VBR for MPEG1, if it looks as good as SVCD I'm gonna owe you and your dog and cat a huge apology


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nomadxjl on 2001-08-23 13:06:56 ]</font>

[next]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-08-23 12:59:13, Nomadxjl wrote:
kinneera, if you say one more time that XVCD looks as good as SVCD I'm gonna kill and eat your dog. The only thing I can figure is your TV has a terrible picture and your not seeing what SVCD really looks like, or you don't know how to make a SVCD right. What kind of dog do you have? A cat would be good too. I'm gonna try your 720x480 and 2300 VBR for MPEG1, if it looks as good as SVCD I'm gonna owe you and your dog and cat a huge apology


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nomadxjl on 2001-08-23 13:06:56 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

LOL

Start looking for a cat and dog. I get great quality with XVCD at the suggested settings. The only problem I get is an occasional "glitch' when I play it back on my DVD player. Nothing serious but it's not perfect. Moving to the same settings with an mpeg2 stream has eliminated these 'glitches'.

[Nomadxjl]

But if you move to MPEG2 then isn't this an SVCD now and not an XVCD? I just did a ten minute test with these settings and it does look a little better than a normal XVCD (I think), but its still not as sharp as an SVCD. So I'm gonna be eating a cat or dog.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nomadxjl on 2001-08-23 13:49:32 ]</font>

[next]

LOLOLOL

Yes it is SVCD and it probably is sharper. I prefer SVCD as well. My point was that XVCD can produce great results. Mpeg1 and mpeg2 have different strengths and weaknesses. I was not unhappy with XVCD it was just those darn artifacts or "glitches" as I call them. SVCD works better for me but it may simply be related to my hardware.

So you get to eat a cat and dog huh? Does that mean you won? Ouch.

[Nomadxjl]

No I haven't won. You can't win with VCD, XVCD , or SVCD, they all have drawbacks. The only way to win for me will be when I can truly copy or clone a DVD, maybe this will be possible with the new DVD burners. I know the Clone CD people are working on software called Clone DVD as we speak, maybe this will do it. I have to get a burner still, I'm gonna get one this spring even if there 600 bucks. By then they will probably be less than that. And yes I am a DVD pirate and proud of it. I read in a news magazine it costs 50 cents to manufacture a DVD. That covers the case, the printing, the whole thing. But they still charge
an average 25 dollars for a movie. If they are gonna be that greedy, you can bet I'm gonna strike back any way I can. These people are greedy bastards. Kinda like the music industry. For 20 years they have been charging way to much for a damn music cd with 30 minutes of music on it. Then, they deliberately make it impossible to get one hit song from Bob Seger so your forced to buy a whole CD. Now they come out with these pay music sites, they only let you download Mp3's that are 128kbps and you can't burn them on cd, just listen to them at your computer, again trying to force you to buy the cd even though you already paid to download the song. I am tired of these greedy bastards in a big way


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nomadxjl on 2001-08-23 15:50:24 ]</font>

[KoalaBear]

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: rather than alter their opinion to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their opinion."
-- Tom Baker as Dr. Who

The facts:

Any good theorist (conspiracy or otherwise) would do well to test his beliefs from time to time, because even if they're consistent with the known facts, they might still be wrong. In the interest of giving myself a reality check I performed an experiment which compared the image quality of VCD vs. SVCD in order to put my own beliefs into perspective. The link below will take you to a page where you can download these clips for yourself:


A Fair Comparison

Where I was right:

1. A properly coded VCD looks very good on its own merits.
2. Bitrate reductions through pre-processing (IVTC) dramatically improve VCD quality.
3. SVCD looks better than VCD due to full vertical resolution, not because MPEG-2 is more efficient than MPEG-1.

Where I was wrong:

1. I thought SVCD would gain less benefit from bitrate reduction than VCD because the compression ratio is higher. Wrong. Both benefit equally.
2. In order to make the experiment fair, I lowered the SVCD bitrate to the level required to make the full program fit on one disc. I thought the additional reduction in bitrate would degrade the overall quality. Wrong. The gain from IVTC was more than enough to overcome the lower average bitrate.
3. All things being equal, I thought SVCD would exhibit more artifacts than VCD. Wrong. SVCD is no more or less prone to artifacts than VCD. In fact, the type and degree of artifacting between the two clips is remarkably similar.

My (revised) opinion:

This experiment gave me new respect for SVCD, although I still don't think it qualifies as
"the wonder format of the 21st century" or anything. The picture quality is indeed very good, and for short form (30-60 minute) programs it might be just the ticket. But the lack of play time rules it out for longer programs to me. I don't mind swapping a disc to see both halves of a movie, but swapping 3 or 4 of them would be more trouble to me than the extra picture definition is worth. I mean, I'd rather own the movie on DVD and not have to swap anything at all, but if I have to take second-best, a 2-disc VCD will suffice.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KoalaBear on 2001-08-23 18:17:58 ]</font>

[Nomadxjl]

I agree with this 100%, but like I and others keep saying THINK OF THE FUTURE!! We will all have DVDR burners soon, media will be cheaper than hell, and then the people who live with having a movie on 3 disks in SVCD format will be happy as hell, because they can rejoin these files and put 2 movies on 1 DVDR, the people who make XVCD's and VCD's are going to be sorrier than the time I was riding a bike with no seat and I hit a huge bump, came down full force an the seat shaft went up my ass!

[flaninacupboard]

well, attempted to conduct my own VCD/SVCD comparison. i used XVCD 1457KBPS(to fit 130min on two dics) 352x240NTSCfilm, and SVCD 2pass variable 1457kbps 480x480NTSCfilm. the svcd file was a few K smaller, and the difference in quality............? none whatsoever. actually, not quite true. the SVCD looke marginally worse, because more of the shit shittiness of the DivX file was carried over.

hint: don't use DivX's to test things. they suck.