Is cvd better qaulity than svcd on dvd player

[jamieUK22]

wot is the best format to play on a dvd player and any tips on how the hell 2 open the unblock file in tmpg so i can change the settings

regards jamie

[puertorican138]

Yes, CVD is much better quality than SVCD. CVD has 1/2 D1 resolution which makes it DVD compatible as is, unlike SVCD. DVD Authoring programs are going to accept your CVD's because they're resolution (352x480-NTSC,352x576-PAL) is DVD compatible. CVD also is the official resolution for SVHS tapes. So capturing from a SVCD tape ensures that you won't lose much data or picture quality. CVD has a better picture quality than that of SVCD. CVDs' can use the same bitrate as SVCDs but with a lower horizontal resolution (352-CVD Horizontal VS. 480-SVCD Horizontal). The data shared to each frame is more for CVD than for SVCD. With CVD, you get a high quality SVCD picture, with lower bitrates.

Some Examples to play with:

# A CVD with a CBR bitrate of 2520kb/s looks better (less blocks/smoothness) than a SVCD with a CBR bitrate of 2520kb/s
# A CVD with a CBR bitrate of 2350kb/s is picture quality equal with a SVCD with a CBR bitrate of 2520kb/s
# A CVD with a VBR bitrate of 1200kb/s minimum, 2300kb/s average, 2520kb/s maximum is equal a SVCD with a VBR bitrate of 1200kb/s minimum, 2520kb/s average, 2520kb/s maximum. In theory, this settings produce the best SVCD quality possible, even if average/maximum have the same value, 'cause picture is scanned twice and a better allocation of data per frame succeeded.


There's is only one real con about CVD, and it's less sharper than SVCD. You can fix that by using sharpen filters while you encode. The vertical lines are the ones that give you picture, sharpness, and detail. You could use compliant SVCDish' bitrates and get better picture with CVD. With CVD, you have less pixels/per frame than that of SVCD to produce equal or better picture.

CVD and SVCD have the same audio frequencies. One or two MPEG-2 Layer audio streams with a frequency of 44100Hz. 44100Hz audio frequency is incompatible with DVD specifications. The audio must be resampled to 48000Hz for CVD to be compatible and burnable to DVD. If you want to know if your DVD Player can play 48000Hz, burn a sample test to a CD-RW with 48000Hz audio frequencies and see if it will play.

Also, when creating DVD compatible CVDs', make sure you set "The Max number of frames in GOP" to 15 (PAL-25fps) or 18 (NTSC-23.976fps or 29.97fps). Anything other than 15 or 18, and you're out of DVD compatibility standards for CVD. I suggest using 15 (PAL) and 18 (NTSC) if you want full compatibility.


Hope That Helps You, I sure did a huge amount of typing to help you out!!! :P

[puertorican138]

Here are the steps for getting the unlock folder to open:


1. Load up TMPGEnc
2. Click on "Load" at the bottom right next to settings
3. Click on your template of choice
4. Click on "Load" again and go to the Extra folder.
5. Click on the "unlock.mcf" file
6. Click on "Settings" and you shall see most of all the greyed out stuff before is available for you to change.


Hope that and what I said about CVD helped you out a whole deal!!! :P

[crahak]

I wonder if people just post questions away and not search previous threads (on every forum that is)... Just like the "what's the best capture card" or such. You'd find out people dealing with PAL are happier than people dealing with NTSC... My best advice, try for yourself.

[CyberDude101]

Can someone please post a sample, preferrebly comparing both CVD and SVCD. I've always been a supporter of SVCD and have been encoding them for some time, that is why im interested in seeing if there is a significant difference,

Thanks

[adam]

You absolutely cannot conclude that CVD is necessarily higher quality than SVCD or vice versa. They each have their tradeoffs, thats the whole point. CVD will have more bits per pixel but the difference in resolution can be noticable and since the image is being stretched more you will sometimes have increased aliasing. If you can achieve an avg bitrate of 2.1-2.5mbits then you should probably stick to SVCD because your bits per pixel ratio is already fairly close to DVD to begin with. If your avg bitrate is only going to be around 2mbits or lower than you should consider using CVD resolution since it will prevent artifacts during high motion/high detail scenes.

puertorican138 in those three examples you are only showing that CVD has more bits per pixels in those instances, but this is not a measure of quality.

#At CBR 2500kbits I would argue that a SVCD looks better than a CVD since it has probably more than enough bitrate to support the higher resolution.

#A CVD with CBR 2350 will have equal bits per pixel as a SVCD at CBR 2520 (Ill take your word for it regarding the math...its late) but it most certainly will not have equal quality and this should be obvious. In this instance both have the same amount of bits per pixel yet the SVCD has more lines of resolution, so it couldnt possibly be equal in quality.

#Again, I would argue that an avg bitrate of 2300kbits is enough to support SVCD's resolution of 480x480/576, but this is about the point at which CVD starts to become the more logical choice.

The point is this...CVD will grant you increased bits per pixel but unless you are using a low bitrate, this is only going to amount to less artifacts during fast motion/high detail scenes, which probably won't even be present on a well made SVCD with an avg bitrate above ~2mbits. CVD is the logical choice if you need to squeeze some extra content onto each cdr. If you can achieve a high average bitrate then you probably will only lose quality by using CVD instead of SVCD but of course this is all entirely subjective. Some people may find the sharpness of SVCD more appealing even if there are more artifacts, just as the opposite can be said of CVD.

In regards to using sharpen filters to offset the difference in resolution, I really think this is a pretty hollow argument. First off, you could just use that same level of sharpening on the SVCD and make it that much sharper, so you see its really all relative. In actuality sharpen filters are not all they are cracked up to be. Sharpen filters basically just add a fine white line around any black edges, so it makes that black stand out more. So on a soft image this appears to bring those edges back into focus, and it works very well in this instance. If you are using a high quailty source, such as a dvd for example, sharpen filters should only be used sparingly, if at all, since they give the image a grainy quality and more importantly the increased contrast means the film will require more bitrate. So by using a sharpen filter to offset the decrease in resolution you are actually negating the very benefit of CVD itself (increased bits per pixel), well at least somewhat. In my opinion a sharpen filter absolutely will not offset a decrease in resolution, it will only bring some punch back into an overly soft image.

Sorry puertorican138 if it sounds like I'm picking on your views, because the basis for them is largely correct. I just don't think its that cut and dry, and when dealing with something as inherantly subjective as percieved quality, it never is. If bits per pixel were the only measure of quality than CVD would win every time, but this is not the case. To judge the quality of anything you have to look at the whole picture, so as far as I'm concerned the real answer to the question of which is better is that it depends.

My personal practice is that if my avg bitrate is less than 2mbits than I typically use CVD, and if its 2mbits or higher I typically use SVCD. However, I take the compressibility of the source into account as well.

[LeeBear]

I agree with adam, quality is very subjective and besides the resolution and bitrate the equipment you watch it on can determine what format has the best 'quality'. For example movies in the CVD format on my 16:9 widescreen HDTV has very noticeable and terrible aliasing on diagonal lines, and subjective I'll rate the quality as worst then the blurrier but no aliasing VCD of the same movie. Now if I watch the CVD on my regular 4:3 TV the diagonal aliasing problem isn't noticeable and the image is definitely sharper then the VCD, and subjectively I'll rate the CVD as higher 'quality'.

I mostly encode to CVD and SVCD format's. Adam has mentioned some technical advantages and disadvantages of both formats but didn't mention any real world situations advantages. When do I use CVD? The advantage of CVD is the slightly lower resolution allows for more bits per frame over SVCD. This is very helpful for encoding stuff off television or camcorders. These sources tend to be full screen, interlaced and 29.97 fps, which SVCD even at the highest bitrate of 2520 kb/s have trouble encoding without artifacts because there's just not enough bits to encode well, on material like this CVD generally is the better choice. When do I use SVCD? I generally use the SVCD format when ripping movies off DVD's. Most movies (90-120 mins) is going to need 2 CD's regardless if you use CVD or SVCD format so saving bits isn't that important. And movies are generally easier to encode then video because they are not full screen (letterbox), are progressive, and usually 23.976 fps. With all these factors the advantage of CVD (less artifacts) isn't necessary because the encoder isn't starved for bits. I've encoded many movies using SVCD's and using a VBR with an average of 1800-2200 kb/s you practically never get artifacts. I've even gone as low as 1600 kb/s and had great results. So in summary there is no 'best' format, the 'best' format depends on many things.

-LeeBear

[puertorican138]

Thanks adam and LeeBear for correcting me. :P

[SatStorm]

HDTV is an issue of US and only US. In europe, HDTV is far away. More than 10 - 15 years. The reasons are simply: The transmissions in EU are 3 kinds: Terrestial, Satellite and Cable. There are also of 2 types: Digital and Analogue. There are countries have them all (UK), but most of them have one kind or other. So, a long plan started since 1996 to turn all european transmissions to digital. DVB mpeg 2 that is. Seven years later, and stil only the 30% turn digital. Germany have already stated that analogue transmissions gonna be there untill 2010 and the plan is to stay at least until 2015!
As you can understand, it is impossible to move to HDTV here in Europe, if we don't first turn full dvb digital. That won't start before 2015, so the HDTV issue ain't something to discuss here.

Why this analysis? Just to show you, that HDTV is not an option, or a close future possibility. For as, the Europeans, HDTV is something we have to deal in the FAR future. Meanwhile, we have only DVB/mpeg 2 and there limitations.

Also, on HDTV, any VCD, CVD, SVCD and DVD gonna look like crap. I know, because I saw it on this years and last years EISA awards (I am related...). I also saw how those formats looks on the new Pixel plus Philips TVs, which increase the TV resolution up to 800 X 600 !
All look like crap. Crap is Crap. There is not less crap (SVCD) or more crap (CVD).

The basic reason, has nothing to do with the frame size (resolution) or the mpeg 2 nature. The true problem hiddes on a simply technical reason: DVD standalones are not good for Pan & Scan. They do it, but that doesn't mean they do it correct. You see, DVDs DON"T have to pan and scan! The 720 X 576 is the standard for DVDs, and that doesn't need that fuction.
On the very few standalones with good Pan & Scan fuction, there are no probs with CVD and SVCDs.

The best prove to you, are the DVB/s receivers. MANY DVB channels transmits @ 352 X 576 with an average of 3100kb/s. Because DVB receivers have to be flexible with pan and scan fuctions (as there are only a few full CCIR 601 channels out there), they have excellent fuction in this matter. So and the picture: It is excellent.

Now, if you want to do the ultimate test, then grabb a 352 X 576 satellite transmission, and burn it to a CVD or SVCD. Grabb the stream as is, not analogue/dv etc. As is! Now watch it on a DVD standalone: The picture ain't the same! The quality is lower! How this is possible? Because the mpeg decoder and the pan and scan fuction of the DVD standalones are not the best possilbe! They simply do the job. That's it!


My final word: Don't let the mpeg decoders, the standard built in cheaps and the popularity of some standalones drive your opinions of a such deligate subject like "how framesizes looks". It is stupid.
And don't expect any of todays commercial optical media look good on HDTV. They suck. They true suck. There is no "less crap". There are no levels on CRAP! Crap is Crap and that's it.
There is only one TRUE good format today: Digital VHS. Believe or not, it is the only format that looks good on HDTV. Anything else is CRAP

[adam]

Sorry Satstorm but what does HDTV have to do with this discussion? I was making my analyses from a 27" 10yr old 4:3 tv, and I can see a visual difference in sharpness and aliasing between SVCD and CVD.

If SVCD, CVD, and VCD all look like crap on an HDTV, which I don't totally agree with BTW, then why even mention it in this discussion?

[vitualis]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is SatStorm...

It seems that you are implying that current optical media will look poorly on current equipment on a HDTV... However, this really has nothing to do with medium itself...

Furthermore, the fact that a particular player may not have the best quality mpeg decoder in existence does not mean that testing the relative quality of discs cannot be performed.

Regards.

[SatStorm]

The question was (exactly): "Is cvd better qaulity than svcd on dvd player". And I answer (with many words) that they look both crap on HDTV
I get the answer one step beyond....

Sorry