Please explain problems with SVCD->DVD-R

[rhuala2]

Hi,

I would like to use burn SVCD's to DVD-R because I personally find VCD (352x240) poor quality in general and DVD (720x480) takes up too much space. I am using DVDit! and when I try to take my MPEG2 files which are SVCD (480x480) and burn them to a DVD-R disk. Unfortunately DVDit! keeps giving me this annoying WARNING : "This is not a valid supported DVD format and will most likely not play in stand alone DVD players". Not word for word but you get the idea. I ignore the warning and finish burning, it ends up playing fine in my new Panasonic DVD player and my wifes crappy $50 DVD player, so what's the problem?

Is there a problem in general with burning SVCD's to DVD-R and why is that ... grrr? That's the stupidest thing I've heard of VCD and DVD and no middle road. Would somebody please clear up this confusion. In some ways I figure 'ok' if it works in my players just ignore the error, but a little voice in the back of my head won't let me and I keep wondering about if maybe in the future stand alone players won't support SVCD and I'll have wasted a lot of time. Thanks.

Rob

[Treebeard]

http://www.vcdhelp.com/svcddvdr.htm

heres a guide to put svcd on dvdr

[rhuala2]

yes, that article is basically where my questions originated, look at the first line:

"Standard DVD do not support the SVCD MPEG2 standard but you can anyway make some kind of XDVD without reencoding the SVCD that may work on some DVD Players."

This is my biggest hurdle, compatibiliy with most DVD players.

and..

"If you want better DVD Player compability convert the SVCD to real DVD or VCD instead."

Which really sucks then your only choice is crap quality or huge size. When capturing from NTSC converting to 720x480 seems to be a waste anyways, garbage in -> garbage out. In other words converting to 720x480 gives you no quality only quantity!

Now, I do believe 352x480 is a compliant DVD standard, with decent quality and size. Is there anyway to get TMPGEnc to encode to that size or is there another program that can encode as good as TMPGEnc to that size. That would solve everything...

Rob

[Treebeard]

Yes you can change resolution size in Tmpgenc. The resolution you are referring to (352x480) is a CVD. click on the tools section to the left. scroll way down to the tmpgenc template section. there is a cvd template to download there. you can drop this into your template folder of tmpgenc and then change any settings you want to. hope that helps

[rhuala2]

Sweeeet, thanks exactly what the fix I need

[wulf109]

DVD Patcher will correct the headers of an SVCD 480x480 to foll your authoring program into thinking the resolution is DVD compliant. I've used it to convert 480x480 to DVD. They play on my Sampo and Daewoo players well. I suspect that any DVD player that plays SVCD will have no problem with a 480x480 DVD,since it's firmware is designed to resize 480x480.

[rhuala2]

Why bother, why not just capture in 352x480 and encode in 352x480, then u never need to worry about patching or tricking anything. Also, I figure the file size is slightly smaller and the quality may be every so slightly less. I can't perceive a difference especially on anything that's captured in native NTSC. Maybe if I was converting a DVD then a slight quality difference may be observed although I doubt it.

rhuala

[macleod]

on your quote

Also, I figure the file size is slightly smaller and the quality may be every so slightly less.

I wanted to throw my 2 cents in for the quality is slightly less. I have found the opposite to be true on a normal 4:3 (non widescreen) TV. One of the posts on here did a quasi math formula to explain why CVD is better than SVCD (you'll note that I prefer CVD over SVCD) because of the way the bits are allocated for less horizontal space. I wont try to recreate it here, but conversationally speaking, you have, lets say 2520 bits to allocate to a 352 x 480(CVD) and 480x480(SVCD). Less bits will go into each pixel on the SVCD than the CVD. As far as resolution (taling only 4:3 TV here), I don't see a difference between the two with losing 128 horizontal lines as those lines (what I have read and been told) don't really have anything to do with picture clarity. On my 27" 4:3 TV, I don't see a difference, having used the two. Also with the allocation of bits, you will have less (or no) pixelation in higher motion scenes.

Try it out for yourself and see what you think. Of course, the other great benefit is that you don't have to reencode or fool the SVCD to make it DVD compliant (which, I believe CVD is). And then there is the audio factor. DVD is suppose to be 48mhz and not 44mhz, which VCD and SVCD "generally" are coded at.

If you have any questions or anything, feel free to email me.

[rhuala2]

More bits for less space (480-352=128 fewer lines) = better pic? Interesting thought, I understand your reasoning and to me this would only make sense if comparing fast motion vid vs. slow motion. If the image was slow moving then I think the 480x480 would be sharper but if it was fast moving then I think it would be smoother and therefore perceived clearer at 352x480. On the other hand if you took it to an extreme and compared VCD to SVCD and used the same bit rate, say 2520 and the same logic the VCD should look much better than the SVCD? yet that's not the case. The only way the VCD could look better is if the bitrate was real low, say 900, then the SVCD would look so jerky yet sharp but the VCD would appear clearer because it was way smoother. Just talking off the top of my head, nothing I have proven yet...

To me the loss of the 128 lines in the horizontal is no big deal, I don't notice a difference in PQ but if the 128 lines were lost in the Vertical then it would matter much more, yet I do not fully understand why? At any rate it boils down to CVD being:

1. As close if not better PQ then SVCD
2. Completely DVD compliant (as per DVDR section to the left)
3. File size is smaller so I can fit more onto a DVD-R

Seems like a win-win situation to me ...

rhuala

[wulf109]

The DVD Patcher option was intended to deal with pre-existing 480x480 encodes,not new ones. If your capturing/ripping for conversion to DVD then using any resolution other than 720x480 is counter productive. Resolution has no effect on file size in CBR or VBR modes. Whether you encode at 352x480,480x480,or 720x480 the resulting file size will be the same. The only reason to use 352x480 is if your encoding at a very low bitrate. DVD bitrates would be in the 3000-6000 range. If your using bitrates in that range you should only use 720x480,352x480 will be the same file size but at a signifigantly lower resolution.

[Revilo]

Wulf I agree with what you are saying.. bitrate is the one and only thing that matters when it comes to filesize for any given piece of video. However, I think he is trying to fit more video on one dvd-r than you would normally want to for DVD resolution (at a bitrate of ~3000 avg). With CVD resolution he should be able to get away with about half the average bitrate and still not have blocking problems during high motion. If however, he is using bitrates around 3000+, I would stick with DVD resolution.
Rob, for NTSC broadcasts, you probably aren't losing any clarity with CVD resolution, but I wouldn't ditch the res for DVD rips. One day you just might get that 65" widescreen HDTV and wish you had kept the 720/480. I have a 55" ws HDTV and DVD looks mediocre compared to HDTV. I can't imagine what CVD res would look like on it.. but I won't even bother trying it.

[xed]

The debate over whether CVD looks better or the same or worse than SVCD has been going on for a long time. This fact alone seems to indicate that very little visible resolution gets lost by going down to CVD resoultion as opposed to 480 x 480 SVCD.
As for the assertion that bitrate alone is the determining factor in image quality...well, it depends. There is no question that at very low bitrates, nothing else matters -- the encoded video turns to junk, and I think was the poster's point. And it's a very good one. Low bitrates turn any encoded video to junk. However, beyond some relatively high bitrate (and different people have different opinions about this -- for some folks it's 3.5 megabits, for others it's 5 or 6 megabits, for still others it's 8 megabits) uppping the bitrate doesn't seem to produce much additional improvement in the video playback -- at least on standard analog TVs.
Beyond that relatively high bitrate, my own experience indicates that there is a slight improvement produced by going to 720 x 480 DVD format encoding as opposed to 480 x 480 SVCD or 352 x 480 CVD format. The improvement takes the form in slight apparent increase in fine detail, particularly int he background. Good examples include bringing out the resoution of trees whose leaves blwo int he wind, or a cityspace, or waves on the ocean.
I have A/B'd comparisons between 720 x 480 and 480 x 480 encodes of the same source played back by someone else at random and I can tell the difference on my analog TV set. But just barely in most cases. Only in a very rare cases does the 720 x 480 resolution produce a visibly significant improvement in the playback.
Now, this would seem to inidcate that the improvement in video quality produced by going to 720 x 480 as opposed to CVD is highly program-material-dependent. If you have source material with very little fine detail in most of the background (say, like a soap opera, or perhaps Ken Bruns' Civil War documentary) then putting the source material on a DVD at SVCD or CVD res makes good sense.
On the other hand, if you have source material with lots of fine detail in the background (for example, Babylon 5) then you will probably notice some loss of resolution when you encode to SVCD or CVD on a DVD.
Using a DVD to store and play back SVCD or CVD encoded video makes excellent sense. You can get a LOT more video on a DVD-R that way and for a lot of video source material the video resoution is only very slightly different -- on an analog TV , that is.
The one disadvantage is that Windows Media Player will not, I believe, correctly play back a DVD full of SVCD or CVD video. This only matters if you intend to play the DVD on your computer, rather than a standalone player.

[phairway]

Thanks guys for all the tips about CVD vs. SVCD vs DVD settings. Very very useful information. So much to learn in so little time. Anyhow, I have downloaded the tmpgenc CVD template and it is exactly what i needed to have balance of size and quality for storing movies on dvd. My question is about calculating size. Since the project wizard is very useful in calculating exact file sizes. Is there any way to get the CVD template settings to appear in the project wizard? Or is there another sure way of calculating EXACT file sizes? The CVD setting that tmpg gives you doesn't allow you to go lower than a bit rate of 2000, which sometimes makes the file larger than desired. This setting also only allows for CBR encoding. Your help is much appreciated.

[SatStorm]

You can use any bitrate calculator of SVCD for CVD. It is the same.
One of the best calculators for CVD, is the java one of this site (set it on SVCD)

My 2 cents for CVD (as I am one of the advanced ones for this...)
CVD is ideal for sources from analogue captures in generall, like VHS/SVHS, TV transmissions and DVB satellite ones, when you grab from the TV out (SCART or Composite) (which in a way is simply a "clean" analogue source and nothing more, since DVB is converted analogue from the reciever to make it playable to your TV).
The reason which CVD is better SVCD from those sources, is the bad hardware of today, including cables, pc card limitations, drivers, encoders etc. In an ideal world and in the theory SVCD is better, but the true is that even if the books determines some things (and many following them blindly just to say so..), in praxis the true varies a lot! Practicly and for various reasons, 1/2 D1 always is a better choice that 480 X 576 for analogue grabbs of any kind (without the use of very advance pro hardware)
SVCD for the other hand, is better for DVD backups, pure DVB rips and maybe LaserDisc convertion with expensive hardware. With those sources (except LD), the convertion is full digital, so SVCD is capable to full rise the benefits of the higher horizontal resolution . Basicly, the only benefit it has, is that it is more sharp than CVD. Some people with good TV sets on USA (which HDTVs are avalaible) can see that (I repait, only if the source is DVD/pure DVB, if you convert from analogue grabs you won't notice a thing). For europe which HDTV gonna appear in the far future, you have to wait about 15 years to experience that sharpness difference today many US users with HDTVs see That's is also the reason which many cable/satellite DVB channels in Europe, transmits with resolutions like 352 X 576 and 544 X 576. There is no TV sets to saw the difference!
One minus of SVCD, if you compare it with CVD, is that it needs more bitrate than CVD per frame, so on extreme scenes it might produce more blocks than CVD if you stay to the max specifications (2520kb/s). Simply the bitrate ain't enough to support any situation....
The other minus, is that the resolution SVCD uses aint' compatible with DVD Video. Even if many of today's DVD Standalones don't have problem with that, compatibility is an issue which prevent you from bad situations.
So, is one win for SVCD (sharpness, much more noticable to US because of HDTVs and the bad NTSC system...) against 2 wins for CVD (more data per frame and direct m2v compatibility (the video part of any mpeg) with DVD video).
The way I see it, I can put 3 movies per DVD-R disc on excellent quality using 1/2 D1 resolution. Since I live in the PAL land and HDTV is scifi here, I shall start concerning for the quality in about 15 years from now. So, CVD and 1/2 D1 resolution in generall, is ok for me now and many years to come.
From the other hand, for US users I suggest to move to DVD and don't mess up with CVD/SVCD at all for any project. For you there, HDTV is almost a reality, and those CD based formats ain't a good solution for quality. Even DVD needs to try hard for HDTV.

So, the bottom line is: For PAL users, it is 1/2D1 (and that's OK for about 15 more years). For NTSC ones, it is only Full D1 from today!
The choice is yours as always.