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

[thebach]

galdridge, the new Pioneer DVD burners burn MPEG2 files by default and those disks will play on any DVD player. So I burn SVCD's, so when you get a DVDR you can copy those MPEG2 files off your CD's to your computer, rejoin them, and burn 2 full uncut movies on 1 blank DVD. This is the best way to plan for a future DVD burner

[steve_759]

This all gets down to trade-offs:
1. Frame size vs. disc space
2. play-back equipment
3. Creation equipment (PC etc..)
4. cost vs. time

Right now I make (x)SVCD's for playback on my philips 711
and play it back on a Mitsubishi 46" 16:9
I've seen the differnce from burning each format.

I've used DV tape/firewire for a source,remembering that
even DV is a 5:1 compression media.

The REAL question now is:
HD-DVD when?

HD-TV,why not HD on a disc? if we are trying for whole movies on a CD,
Why not better on dvd? LOL!

btwx)SVCD is simple,just time consuming.
If you need a TEPMGen 12a template, e-mail me.

System used:
P-2 dual 400(over-clocked to 512Mhz),windows 2k,192MB ram, 20GB system disk,(4)45GB EIDE-ATA RAID (raid mode 0).

[kinneera]

thebach - just because the burner burns MPEG2 files by default does not mean that those files are going to be recognized as a playable DVD by any standalone, and in fact almost certainly will not, especially if the resolution is 480x480. The most likely result is that it will refuse to play it as an SVCD because it is on DVD media, and will refuse to play it as DVD because it can't figure out how to decode the very non-DVD-compliant MPEG2 streams used for SVCD. The result will be you're SOL unless you want to play it on a computer. I will concede right now that this is technically hypothetical reasoning, but it's pretty damn sound reasoning, and the possibility of joining multiple SVCDs onto DVD-Rs is an extremely poor argument for choosing the format compared to any number of other considerations. However, creating cDVD/miniDVDs, would be a logical solution if that is the objective, and you're willing to expend a LOT of CD-Rs.

[Sefy]

I Agree with Adam regarding the fact that SVCD is superior to VCD on just about all acounts but one, and that is, when played back on the TV I barely saw any diffrence that was for me worth having a movie on 3 to 4 CD's, and people, stop with the excuses of future ready!
When you get a DVDR, I guarntee you will dump all those SVCD cuts and re-rip the movie maybe even in DVD format.

[TPW]

From my 2 years of encoding experience, VCD is only for the newbies and CDR nazis, if you want quality, sacrificing quantity of CDR's go for the SVCD format. Besides when your friends don't have a DVD player that plays SVCDs it's thier fault! Your the one who put the cash out to buy a DVD player that plays SVCDs why should you suffer from the lower quality to make it more compatible, when in the end you'll be the one watching these movies.

The only reason VCD is winnning is because these people either have a DVD player that doesn't play SVCD or don't have the time to waste encoding. Either way, I've created SVCDs only needing 2 CDs, with the right authoring and encoding software you can maximize the quality without suffering the use of a 3rd CDR or suffering the quality of the VCD format.

After watching the SVCD format I haven't turned back unless the source I was using is inferior to the SVCD format (ahem VCD!!)

Now don't let these CDR nazis and encoding newbies trick you into using VCD, for god sakes the site's name is VCDHelp.com what do you think 80 percent of the people are here for? SVCDHelp? I think not!

[kinneera]

After all of the good discussion already placed in this thread, that was about the most uninformed and intentionally misleading pile of tripe thats been posted yet. There are tons of people here who are anything but newbies who see the merits of VCD for many applications, just as they see certain merits to SVCD. And I must largely agree with Sefy's comment that on TVs in particular, the difference between SVCD and XVCD is much less significant. This may not hold true for an HDTV or some gargantuan bigscreen, but if you can afford those, why aren't you just buying the DVDs or the DVD burners anyway?

[pacmania_2001]

Just a question about an earlier posting that Sefy made about Laser Discs being better quality. I thought that DVD was the same or better quality and that the pictures on laser discs degraded. Am I wrong in these assumptions?

[kinneera]

I think in some ways, LaserDisc and DVD are difficult formats to compare, but it appears that in most technical respects, DVD is actually better:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/Introduction.html

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/

[KoalaBear]

I have to agree that, posturing and emotional attachment aside, this has been one of the most interesting discussions I've read in awhile.

The most interesting thing for me was the discovery that SVCD is better than VCD by a constant margin. Think of them as two cars on the same train. Whether VCD is one car behind SVCD or three isn't important; the distance between them doesn't change no matter how fast the train is moving.

In other words, anything a person might do to improve SVCD quality by some percentage will improve VCD quality by the same percentage. Thus, if you were to create a hypothetically "perfect" SVCD, the hypothetically "perfect" VCD will look so good in comparison that the difference in play time is greater than the difference in picture quality.

People who are vested in SVCD appear to be uncomfortable about this. They expect SVCD to vastly superior to VCD in all cases, and if somebody shows them otherwise they attribute the lack of dramatic superiority to shitty source, shitty hardware, or shitty acquisition rather than the simple fact that VCD is a higher quality format than they would prefer to give it credit for.

If I'm wrong about this I hope someone will make and post sample clips that demonstrate the sort of high definition, eye-popping 3D extravaganza that SVCD by its nature always delivers, and VCD by its nature never will.

At the end of the day, the tips and tricks we exchange for achieving high-quality results do more to improve our viewing enjoyment than 240 lines of increased vertical resolution ever could.

[thebach]

I think we should all tie kinneera
naked to a post and wipe boogers on him, he has it coming. The Pioneer DVD burner burns MPEG2 files, with the software that comes with it you can set up menus with images or even MPEG's just like a store bought DVD, and they will play on ANY standalone that will play a store bought DVD. Like I said before, they talked and demonstrated this thing on TechTV. Use your head, if standalones will play CDR's with SVCD's, XVCD's and VCD's, you don't think a DVDR is going to play on a standalone? And did I mention how much better SVCD's look than either XVCD's or VCD's?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: thebach on 2001-08-26 07:56:16 ]</font>

[CommanderXJL]

This is the kind of crap that pisses me off. Kinneera is in here posting all this shit about how XVCD looks as good as SVCD, but here is a recent post from him in another thread proving he doesn't understand the first thing about even making a SVCD. Here is his question from another thread:

So just to make absolutely sure I understand everything... My video source is DVD, run through inverse telecine with DVD2AVI, so I have a 23.976 fps source. No de-interlacing, and progressive encoding in TMPGEnc, will produce the best results? Also, if this is the case, what is the benefit to MPEG2 over MPEG1? And whatever it is, does it apply at a bitrate as low as 2200Kbps VBR?

So apparently he had no business even offering an opinion on this subject. What a gimp

[kinneera]

The previous and subsequent replies to that post in the thread it was taken from proved that I knew more than any of you SVCD maniacs, I was just bothering to confirm it. As the post that followed in that thread affirmed, MPEG2 at equivalent bitrates and resolution on progressive video is essentially the same as MPEG1, without as many delivery options. Thus, the argument can be made that at 2500 Kbps VBR, 720x480, progressive, an MPEG1 XVCD could in theory look at least equivalent to an MPEG2 SVCD, since both are technically using the same compression mechanism. This is especially true of TV playback. Additionally, the intent of that thread was to establish the necessity/benefits/disadvantages of INTERLACING/DEINTERLACING, so you have taken comments completely out of context for your own benefit, especially in the sense that the conclusion negates one of the most clear-cut so-called advantages of SVCD, namely interlaced video - since progressive video is widely accepted as higher quality. I am perfectly capable of creating and SVCD, but as with all things, wanted to be sure if I was going to, I was going to do it in the best way.

[WMike]

This discussion reminds me of a bunch of guys sitting around the school yard comparing dong size........

As far as the future goes, I have total confidence in all you computer types out there that whatever I want to do with my SVCD's OR VCD's will be possible as DVD-R technology (or whatever) comes around. Shoot. Look at all the conversion possibilities available right now? Do you honestly think that with a world full of both SVCD and VCD's, that someone won't figure out a way to utilize that data in future technological formats?

Sefy, yeah, down the road I might choose to re-rip in a new format. But you of all people would also appreciate the logic that if I find it (whatever "it" is) "good enough", I may not re-rip. The key is having the option, much like today. I can capture and encode "The Exorcist", or I can DVD rip it if want. The choice is mine depending on my quality desires.

Mike

[Sefy]

Mike, I trouly apologise if I had somehow said something to hurt you or anyone else, I was not aware of it, and i'm sorry, all I ment was that i'm sure that once the person gets himself a better equipment, he will in most cases re-rip the movie since he will want even higher quality, especialy those who say SVCD is so much far superior to VCD in quality, they would be the first to re-do the movie in higher quality.

I'm not here to say SVCD and VCD give the same quality, technicly speaking, SVCD is superior no matter how good VCD will be, SVCD will be better, but unfortunatly, it doesn't all depend on your VCD/SVCD disc itself, quality is a factor of everything put together, in this case:

VCD or SVCD disc
VCD/SVCD or DVD Player Decoding ability
Cabels Connections
TV/HiFi Playback Quality

If any of those are not exactly top-notch (especialy TV in this case) then the quality between formats will nearly vanish, it would be like playing a DVD on a old 21" TV, the VCD and DVD will look practicly at the same quality level, so for those who do not or cannot afford all the ultra hi quality systems out there, for those, which I myself am among them, VCD will look just the same as SVCD, no matter how sharp the SVCD will be in reality, and for those who can afford all the hitech equipment, well, they will "always" re-do everything once they upgrade again, so at the moment, they will do SVCD, later on you will have the same argument between ... who knows... SVCD and DVD ?

As for Quality between LaserDisc and DVD, again, if we use the same equipment for both, I find LaserDisc to have higher quality, mostly because it is Not Compressed! no matter how you look at it, especialy those who remember the first DVD's to come out, DVD is a compressed format! LaserDisc is not, compare an Uncompressed AVI to a highly encoded SVCD, no matter how good the SVCD is, the AVI will be BETTER! and that is the main diffrence in LaserDisc and DVD.

I may not all the greatest equipment in the world, but i'm satisfied with what I do have, some people will never be, and that's why they always upgrade, and that's good too, because that makes progress, but I do not believe all the personal attacks (not on me this time thank god) are totaly unprofessional, and there is no need for it, this is a discussion that is ment to enlighten or help those who are curious, so guys (and you know who you are) please stay on the subject, and stop with the personal insults, I know how that feels myself, and i'm sure those you are butchering don't find it amusing.

[thebach]

Face it kenneera, you got busted. You are banned from this forum forever, goodbye, have fun making your fantasy XVCD's that look as good as SVCD. Sefy is probably right, if the day comes when I can copy a DVD my SVCD's that look better than Kinneera's XVCD's are going in the trash, cause I'll re do them...probably. I do think Sefy is the man. Kinneera should never have stopped taking that medication, plus he needs new contacts, but I do like him, I'm just teasing for shits and giggles


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: thebach on 2001-08-26 13:34:29 ]</font>

[Kdiddy]

Unfortunately I have to continue this post because once again Kinneera is spitting out wrong information:

"However, creating cDVD/miniDVDs, would be a logical solution if that is the objective, and you're willing to expend a LOT of CD-Rs."

Last time I checked, like 2 mins ago, I easily fit my miniDVD movie on 2 80 CDRs...hmmm which happen to be the same movie that in VCD took 2 CDRs....while granted it wasnt the exact copy of the original 8mbps video or 448kbps audio....but I can live with a 2 mbps video & 224 kbps DD 5.1 audio....if not 3 CDs wont hurt because the worse that happens is I get better video bitrate, I refuse 4....if I need that kind of quality for 4, I'll just buy the damn DVD.

Like it was once said, the stuff coming out of your mouth (well fingers) is probably confusing newbs left & right

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-08-26 13:43:09 ]</font>

[Sefy]

Kdiddy, forgive me for being doubtful, nothing personal, I always am, and as I have not done any miniDVD since it barely works on anything, i would love to know how you can acomplish a miniDVD movie that fits 2 CD's at such a high quality, unless the movie was around 60min, but since you've said in VCD it also took 2 CD's, i'm very curious and would like to be enlighten how you can acomplish DD5.1 and 2mbps Video on 2 80min CD's, while in VCD settings which would be much lower it would take the same amount of CD's, this just does not compute.

[flaninacupboard]

back on the VCD/SVCD debate:
I decided those clips of space:1999 weren't enough to judge, so did my self a rip of one vob file from "The Crow" about 20 mins long. Encoding times for XVCD at 2171KBPS 192KBPS was one hour and forty mins. SVCD 2 pass variable average 2171KBPS 192KBPS was five hours. quite a big difference.
Results:
viewed the SVCD file first. nice clear picture, seemingly little loss from the DVD at all. i was most impressed. Upon viewing the XVCD file i said "errrrrrrr!" at the instant obvious pixellisation. beatifully detailed scenes became, well, pixels. i thought the decision had been made. until it approached the end of the film, a rooftop battle at night time, in the rain. at this point the tables turned. The SVCD becomes a blocky blurry mess, and the XVCD stays clear of, well, shittiness. This has really annoyed me, because in low motion areas the SVCD looks a -lot- nicer, but in that rain? eurgh. in the end, i think i shall stick with XVCD, for several reasons.
a) a TV is not a monitor, pixellisation is non-apparent
b) in movies over 90 minutes, i -will- require a 3rd disc
c) 5 huors for twenty minutes of footage? that means about 25 hours for your average movie. i wouldnt trust windows, or this cpu to be stable for that long.
d) i'll never be able to afford a DVD-writer so its a non issue
e) my TV, despite its 45inch screen, is a twenty year old front projection model with no RGB or S-Video socket, and a "warm" picture at the best of times
f) i can't see very well, and if i don't wear my glasses (which i can never find) VCD and DVD look essentially the same.

so there you are. i -have- tried SVCD, it -does- look sharper, -but- unless disc swapping (i.e. you have a multi changer) doesn't bother you, and you have a monster PC, it's gonna be a pain to do/use regularly. i urge those who haven't tried it to do so. i was suprised.



NB: im going to look into XVCD's with double vertical res, as this is the main thing going for SVCD.

[Kdiddy]

Sefy:

Mainly because when I was referring to VCD, I should have typed (X)VCD...I rarely encode my VCDs at the standard 1.15mbps rate...the minimum I do is 1.5mbps, but I unfortunately when I am thinking or talking about VCDs in general, I think the ones I make and called it a VCD, instead of XVCD..sorry for the misleading, honestly to me the X in both VCD & SVCD is useless...I just associate VCD with mpeg1 & SVCD with mpeg2..no matter what the bitrate is on the video.....anyways, from there, bitrate is bitrate no matter what you are encoding....use the calculator on this page...for my movie which was 100 min that I just did, my video was 1.957mpbs...ok so I rounded to 2, again sorry, didnt feel like typing 1.957.....the point is that it fits...and I did say occasionally I have to use a 3 disk...in which case if my 1.957 mbps movie was only gonna use 2% of the 3rd disk.....I might as well use whole 3rd disk if Im gonna have to use one...and thereby inceasing my bitrate to accomadate this..in which case on this example, I could use a 3mpbs video bitrate to put this same movie on 3 disk.

[WMike]

Hey Sefy,

No problem here at all. There's virtually nothing you said above I'd disagree with. If I'm understanding you, you're saying that anyone who "wants the best" is always gonna upgrade. Agreed. I think it's probably also what I call the "hobby factor" that can get involved for some. Beyond the product, there's the process which some enjoy greatly, while other's are more interested in the product, and those who are everywhere in-between.

I think you correctly (on many posts) have pointed out the numerous variables associated with production, quality and product. When I see these discussions, it reminds of the old cartoon of the blind men all feeling different parts of the same elephant and reaching different conclusions. The debate is interesting, but anytime something is a matter of taste, diversity will be the word.

BTW, for the record. I'm not one that says SVCD is superior. I just encoded an old family movie shot in the 1960's, probably with like super 8 film. It was converted to VHS and when encoded SVCD, look absolutely like shit. When encoded as a VCD with the proper settings (SeVCD BTW ), it looks awesome....even somewhat better than the original actually. The different formats are all like tools, and IMO should be used when the appropriate need arises.

Mike

[Nomadxjl]

flaninacupboard, if your seeing motion trouble in an SVCD then your doing something wrong. I have done 400 movies in SVCD format and I have NEVER seen any motion trouble at all, no matter what the scene, The Crow is one I did because it's just about my favorite movie, and that scene on mine looks perfect

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nomadxjl on 2001-08-26 19:38:25 ]</font>

[kinneera]

You're free to use whatever you want, honestly I've never tried to claim each format doesn't have its own advantages/disadvantages, uses. I just have one more interesting tidbit to contribute, just for fun. I tried encoding the NTSC test pattern that skittelson has posted on his page (sorry, I can't remember the link), using my XVCD and using SVCD settings in TMPGEnc. For those that don't remember, this would be 720x480 MPEG1 at 2200 Kbps VBR, progressive 23.976 framerate (although 29.97 would be perfectly suitable as well). Both were able to accurately reproduce the resolution lines (as would be expected). The one difference I will concede was that the MPEG1 XVCD has more noticeable edge noise, which is probably attributable to the fact MPEG2 uses 16x8 blocks instead of the 16x16 used by MPEG1. This could be significant for animation, but for most live-action movies where truly sharp edges are largely nonexistent, extra edge noise is not going to be a particularly noticeable artifact, especially for TV playback. Now, keeping in mind that MPEG1 and MPEG2 both use the same compression algorithm (primarily DCT for I-frames, plus a whole plethora of other various tricks based on research about human visual perception), this would bear out the claim that XVCD can approach SVCD quality, for TV playback - AS LONG AS the resolution is equivalent or higher than SVCD, which is admittedly really emphasizing the X part of XVCD. It is absolutely true that at lower resolutions, namely the spec 352x240, it will never approach SVCD, and will look especially terrible on a computer screen. I deleted those outputs, unfortunately, so they are not convenient, but if anyone wants to take a look at them, e-mail me and I can re-generate them and send them to you if you're curious. Hopefully we can all accept this as a reasonable summary/compromise of the claims I have made in the past in this thread without getting their panties in a bunch. This thread is an amazing source of varying opinion and information for anyone interested in this incredibly varied and fascinating topic.

On the curious subject of laserdisc, I was wondering how we define uncompressed video? If you take the kind of data rates we generally associate with uncompressed AVI's, it seems like those LD suckers would be pretty amazing in terms of data storage space, by 80s standards! In fact, is there any definition of how much data an LD could hold, in computer terms? Just curious is all...

[kinneera]

Oh, and one last comment, since I've been falsely accused of misinformation (once again), by another person who is actually the source of misinformation. So here's to KDiddy:

The format you describe is an XSVCD, not a miniDVD. A miniDVD is strictly defined as an exact copy of the DVD format on CD media. This means full DVD bitrate (which you admit to not using), AC3 sound (which you admit you did not replicate fully), and any appropriate subtitles, multiple audio tracks, menus, etc. With all of those characteristics properly recognized, a miniDVD only holds about 15 min. of video.

[Nomadxjl]

My panties are in a bunch

[Kdiddy]

ok since so manyp eople are in love with this love letter..

X, X, X, X, XminiDVD, ya happy now??....or does cDVD do ya better, ooops my bad, XcDVD??...and since I would hazard to "guess" that at least 1/2 the DVD rippers out there only burn the movie itself...then all the excess can be left off as they do when they burn a VCD or SVCD...the point is I can make a movie attainable of SVCD quality with DD 5.1 audio...call it whatever the love ya want to call it..and since so many people like to "think of the future"...so in the fuure with DVD-R, I will be able to make an exact copy....the point is you mislead people into thinking ALL types of miniDVD will only create 15 mins per disk when in fact they dont...so yes, in my book that is misinformation.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kdiddy on 2001-08-27 04:15:47 ]</font>

[kinneera]

There's only one type of miniDVD, for heaven's sake - full DVD quality on CD-R, which means full bitrate, which means 15 min. max. Anything else is some form of SVCD. Our "love affair" with the letters is simply necessary to keep standards straight...if we can call anything whatever we want, we'll never have any idea what we've got! Oh no, I can't get my SXVCDVDLaserDisc to play...hell, it won't even fit in the tray! Sheesh...

[Kdiddy]

Now it is becoming o' so obvious why so many people have scoffed at your remarks throughout this topic....ok you want to get techincal...then lets see where the legitimacy in your statements stand shall we??..using the information provided by this website for an example movie in NTSC form:

Kinneera states: "There's only one type of miniDVD, for heaven's sake - full DVD quality on CD-R, which means full bitrate, which means 15 min. max. Anything else is some form of SVCD."

Now starting with the last sentence about what I create being a form of SVCD....hmmm the website states this about SVCD & XVCD...

SVCD: "Video: max 2600 kbit/sec MPEG-2 480 x 480 pixels 29,97 frames/second with up to 4 Subtitles. Audio: from 32 - 384 kbit/sec MPEG-1 layer2 or MPEG-2 with up to 2 Audio Tracks"

XSVCD: "Video: up to 9800 kbit/sec MPEG-2 720 x 480 pixels
29,97 frames/second (23,976 frames/second NTSC Film)
with up to 4 Subtitles. Audio: 32-384 kbit/sec MPEG-1 Layer2 with up to 2 Audio Tracks"

Geee I dont see anything about an AC3 audio stream mentioned in there???..hmmmmm VCDhelp.com 1 - Kinneera 0.
Now to the statement about the miniDVD...to which the website started with this statement in big bold letters, might have thrown ya off:

"This is no STANDARD as VCD,SVCD or DVD" &

"Video: up to 9,8 Mbit/sec MPEG-2 720 x 480 pixels
29,97 frames/second (23,976 frames/second NTSC Film). Audio:"

Geee lets see..there is no standard miniDVD and video can be ANYTHING "UP TO" 9mbps....hmmm the judges give the next round to VCDhelp.com .5, Kinneera - 0....ONLY because VCDhelp.com does state that "15 mins can fit on a 650mb CDR"...but one can argue because TECHNICALLY (like that dont ya) didnt say anything about a 700 mb...plus given their initial statement of there being no standard & possible VBR, that was not convincing evidence...and thereby declaring Kinneera as one who needs to return the playground where he can convince the kiddies that there really is a Santa Claus.

[kinneera]

The bottom line is that no movie studio in their right mind would try to sell a DVD that is encoded at 2Mbps, because it is an obvious loss of quality. Thus your so-called "miniDVD" is nowhere near DVD quality, and thus does not earn the right to pass itself off as a DVD in any form, regardless of VCDHelp's allowance of flexibility in defining miniDVD. END OF STORY. The far greater source of misinformation here, and the far greater disservice to newbies, is you fooling them into thinking such settings are going to be anywhere near DVD quality. So if you want to resort to childish insults, how about YOU go back to the playground and try to convince the kiddies that your magical miniDVDs can fit a whole DVD without quality loss onto two CDs, even though a DVD holds ~7-8 CDs worth of data.

[Kdiddy]

You have reached the level of just plain stupidity, first you were just ignorant, but ignorance is curable, you obviously did not or could not, whichever the case may be, READ & COMPREHEND what I originally wrote when I brought the topic of miniDVD up...I explicitally said...

"while granted it wasnt the exact copy of the original 8mbps video or 448kbps audio" (to which you main a point of pointing it out, further stickin ya foot in ya mouth) & "if I need that kind of quality for 4, I'll just buy the love DVD." & "the point is I can make a movie attainable of SVCD quality with DD 5.1 audio...call it whatever the love ya want to call it"

Now does this sound like the statements of someone trying to convince people that a miniDVD is EXACTLY the original DVD??....noo, cuz it if was, then I would have a DVD-R(w) copy of "x" movie, because I KNOW that is the only way it is currently possible...so please "Mr. All Knowing", go find where I stated that the type of movie I created was EXACTLY DVD quality (in all respects) & fit on 2 CDRs??

[kinneera]

The way I'll put it is this (and I sincerely hope this will keep everyone happy): The definition of miniDVD, as stated by VCDHelp.com, is DVD quality video on CD-R. So the way that this can really be interpreted is that the quality of the DVD being reproduced on the CD media will determine the characteristics of the miniDVD. Thus, if your DVD source was actually encoded at 2500Kpbs, then the miniDVD based on it would also be at that bitrate, and would indeed store more than 15 min. of video. But since this isn't the case for any DVD actually produced, it is unfair to claim that you will ever get more than 15 min. of video on a miniDVD. Thus, it is more appropriate to classify your settings as XSVCD. Fair enough?

Of course, this definition does leave the door (somewhat) open for a subjective debate over what point it is at which the bitrate justifies calling the video DVD quality. That's not a debate I'm going to get into, but I think it's fair to say that consesus would place it substantially above 2500Kbps.

I read and comprehended what you wrote perfectly well, and the source of my objection was your misrepresentation of quality level that miniDVD is intended to represent, however ambiguous the official definition provided by VCDHelp may be. When you explicitly admit "the point is I can make a movie attainable of SVCD quality with DD 5.1 audio", then you have conceded that you are not creating a miniDVD, as your video is not DVD quality.