SVCD minimum to be better than VCD

[kwag]

@PlaiBoi,

The sample that rendalunit provided is 528x480. There no way that a SVCD 480x480 can look sharper than that. Just like a 480x480 SVCD will look sharper than a 352x480 CVD(SKVCD). If it looks grainy, it probably is because it's actually closer to the original, and what you are seeing at 480x480 is a softer picture. That's why you don't see the details. Take a look at the original DVD. You'll see the fine grains there too. That would be like saying that a KVCDx3 (528x480 ) is sharper than the KVCDx2 ( 704x480 ). No way! It's just plain resolution math. The higher the resolution, the sharper the image.


-kwag

[kwag]

does it though? i took a look at the heist sample and the insomnia sample. w/ the heist sample, the explosion was really obviously blocky. i took a look at your sample and the exact same scenes on a SVCD (>2mbit/s). there were obvious differences, especially in the background.

Sure!, Now that was the complete "Heist" movie on a single CD-R. Try to put that movie as SVCD on one CD-R and see what you're going to get. On the other hand, use the SKVCD and put "Heist" on two CDs. Now it will be slightly softer than a SVCD because of 352x480 resolution, but I guarantee that there will be zero blocks where you do have some blocks on your SVCD

granted, insomnia was better than heist in terms of quality, but also there was an increase in 700 kbit/s. however, the sample was of a slow scene in insomnia, so i'm not sure how the other scenes in the movie are or if it can be applied to a high action movie...but anywayz, even in insomnia, i could tell differences, but less, given the higher bitrate used. but in this case, 2 discs defeats your rhetoric of fitting a movie on 1 CD to get chapters, etc. you were talking about earlier...

If you look carefully at http://www.kvcd.net/dvd-models , you'll see that each template has a description and purpose with average play time per CD-R.

since there are alotta SVCDs that are also made on 2 CDs and of pretty good quality (i.e. done by release groups), your template for fitting a movie on 2 CDs doesn't seem that different.

There is a big difference. A matched pair of Quantization matrix and GOP structure that applies to any encoder capable of accepting a custom matrix and GOP. That is the whole KVCD deal. All efforts were designed around that. Not a template. It just so happens that TMPEG provides the "facility" to put those parameters on a template. And yes, different GOP structures have been tried before with many variations. Not so for Quantization Matrixes. Just look at the KVCD matrix, and you'll see that there is no relationship to any other matrix. ( Just in case someone thinks that KVCD Quantization Matrix was copied from another one 8) )

-kwag

[poopyhead]

kwag,

i'm not advocating fitting an SVCD on 1 CD (hence, i don't care about any comparison to 1 CD SVCDs), that's my point....fitting a movie on 1 CD would lower the quality too much...if someone's willing to sacrifice that much quality to fit on 1 CD, be my guest...but for the most part, 2 CDs would be necessary...

however, in your effort to make kvcd more "near DVD" quality you have gone to 2 CDs, which contradicts your earlier point of having 1 CD rips which contains all the true chapters, etc.... does this apply to the 2 CD kvcds???

and even then, the 2 CD kvcds doesn't look that good. there are plenty of pretty good 2 CD SVCDs that use multi-pass VBR....trying to fit a rip on less CDs by using CQ doesn't really seem too logical when multi-pass VBR obviously has better allocation of bitrate

[Mercury]

Forgive my ignorance, but just what is KVCD and SKVCD?

Edited:
Never mind, found the website.

[vhelp]

There are some things to note when compareing or judging for best
quality.

* DVD player, and settings
* TV
* MPEG Codec, and settings
* Encoding/Encoders and settings
............ Fig A .............


There is also another factor in the JUDGING scene.
* viewer's eyes
* level of what is DVD quality, Super quality, close to DVD quality
* just how much is much.
* level of what is blocks and not
* person A vs. person B idea of quality
............ Fig B .............

Fig A. shows a list of items to take make notes with.

A few months ago, I had taken some of my sample clips to CC for a
test of quality on Large screens and Widescreen TVs. I wanted to
test and see for myself if quality of my encodes were standing up.

In short, NO. quality didn't stand up. However, only fair to say
that only TWO DVD players were used in test (sales man had trouble
working w/ widescreen tv setup) The salesman was only able to
get my samples to work on two SONY DVD players, and on two 32"
Flatscreen TVs.

I say, they looked like crap!! That's just my opinion. But, I
did see LOTs of blocks like I've never seen before, even on the
one's I've seen here (not kwags) Anyways, I couldn't figure it
out. why was MY encodes (of all encodes) so poor. I was very
dissapointed. Till a about a month later, when I was at a friends
how, I noticed he had a 40" or so wide screen tv in his basement
and a 32" Flatscreen upstairs in living room.
I asked him if I could bring in some CDs I made to test on his
TV... "no problem"

Well, I must say, BOTH TV's came out great. Unfortunately, only
one CD (of the 5 I had on hand) worked, and only two files worked
in each test. It left me wanting more. Oh well. Turns out the
disks were not in great shape to begin with, but could have ben
my encoding settings or two - I don't know. In any case. I at least
was able to view two 30 second clips. But, not enough for me to
enjoy or make a real and fair judgment of MY encodes. And, the
scenes were not fair enough for the test. But, they played, and
I did not see one block (well, unless you're anal) at a reasonable
distance. I was happy in that respect.

The moral of this exhausted example above is that you can't always
count on your current or top notch DVD player.
Yes, it will play those Standard VCD or SVCD or DVD perfect
and w/out glitches. But, throw in an encode not standard into
one of these so called top notch dvd player ie SONY and it will
throw a fit, like blocks and stuff.

But, play the same in an cheaper DVD player, ie Apex AD-1500, and
all of the sudden, quality is great! You see, some players will
skimp on Standard or tight specifications and aiming to satisfiy
customers, it/they created such dvd players w/ room to spare
ie, bitrate, etc.

So, those that are judging other peoples encodes, ie kwags, or even
mine, or whoever puts out samples, please bare that in mind.

The above is a good example why you should have an alternate DVD
player. Like, a cheaper one - yes, you CAN affort one more for $59
May turn out that while one DVD player (you so called top NOTCH
SONY) will play another persons encode, and while a not-so-top-notch
like an APEX will play it flawlessly.

Give the above some serious thought the next time you play someones
sample before coming to a final decision. You may be surprised!

Fig B
-----
Its easy to pick out blocks and artifacts when it comes to another
persons encode - weather they state that it's DVD quality or close
to it. TVs, DVDs, and other issues can effect ones judgment.
Person A could utilize tools that Person B doesn't have.
Person A may have an Apex, while Person B a Sony. Both, in my
experience show different quality levels. Even though the same process
of encoding, from start to finish. So, bare that in mind.

Remember this, don't use a certain DVD/capture movie for ALL your test
platforms. You'll not be passing correct judging in this way.
While one DVD movie will look great w/ one template, another may
not look as well, though it still may pass w/ good quality. So,
when you judge, be sure that you are judging based on your actual
use of the template and settings, and also, make sure that you used
the same tools that the user that is demonstrating the level of
quality in the sample (if one is posted) some example tools would be
ripping, as well as the settings, the frameserving methods, etc.
All these have to be observed. Lets not forget the source, and also
the quality of one persons source (could be a capture clip or other)
A slight deviation in an earlier stage can show negatively, later in the
final encoding stages.

Unfortunaltely, this FORUM has not come up w/ a Standard as a bases
for final judging. I made brief suggestions, but they went unnoticed.
But, if we all came up w/ some Standards, we could become better judgers
than vilifiers.

The idea or suggesiton would be, is for someone to come up with a list
of specs, settings, gauges, etc. and set them up as Standard. Then,
when someone posts a topic as such, we can ask if the Standards were
applied in the posters claim. At least, we would ALL be able to use
the Standard as a template, as our bases for judging.

As to the samples posted. IMO, good job. They both looked great.
However, not DVD quality. But, definately good enough for archival
and movie viewing enjoymnet. And, in that sense, DVD quality claim would
not be so far off after all. Come on faulks, you and I have ben doing
Encoidng for a long time. We've allowed ourselves to taint our eyes
w/ too many block counting, analy speaking. Forget that. Just stop
sitting up so close to PC monitor, and nit-pick every scenes for blocks.
Yeah, do that for your own. Leave the nit-picking home
My advise would be to sit back at least 2 1/2 feet away (get the ruler
out if you have to) and watch on your PC monitor. In all honesty,
I can't really see any artifacts unless my main focus is to find
them. Then, what good would any sample be if all we will do is ONLY
look for faults?

I remember being here in the begining, well almost, 1.5 years ago.
And, I remember how scares the samples were. And, I remember how only
VCD then xVCD samples (one or two) came up and how no one talked
negative about them, expect, "great sample", "good quality".
My... how things have come along. 8)

PlaiBoi,

The KVCDx3 encode looks a bit grainy in the background...and I noticed
that it was also pretty soft. Just my 2 cents...not bashing on anyone.

Peronally, I think the so called grainy look adds to the sharpness
if anything. But, I'm not sure I saw grains. Could it be your player
or Standard DVD player? In any case, I didn't see gains, and it looked
good to me.

Kwag,

And yes, different GOP structures have been tried before with many variations. Not so for Quantization Matrixes. Just look at the KVCD matrix, and you'll see that there is no relationship to any other matrix. ( Just in case someone thinks that KVCD Quantization Matrix was copied from another one )

and, I can vouch for that. I've looked, searched etc. And, I do have a
way of seeing how the Matrice looks in a birds eye view. But, even if
one doesn't see what Matrice values were used in an encode, I think you
CAN actually see the Matrice values for Intra and non-intr blocks. I
had an app, but it was buggy, and didn't give me an accurate view.
But, the one good thing was that the app displayed the Matrices for
intr and non-intr, just as they appear in TMPG!!
Kwag, do you recall of such an app. I deleted the app in question, for
obvious reasons. Maybe you know of another one. Something tight and
small. not megabytes big - no what I mean. While I'm at it, how about
one to show actuall GOPs used in an encode. Any that reads them and
display them like the Matrice values?

Novatix,
The min. bitrate will depend on the source. ie, is it a DVD or Capture ??
Then, it will depend on the quality of the source, though Capture's will
present a challenge. DVD however, is greater in quality, and depending
on the DVD movie, color level, noise, actions, panning, scene changes,
boy, lots of issues, bitrate will depend. The best in your case, case
you are obvioulsy a beginner at this, is to run test encodes.

How ?? by using TMPG's [x] Source Range under Advanced tab.
select your start and end point, on say, one minutes worth, and do a
bunch of encodes w/ various bitrate settings.
For DVD sources, the bitrate can be lower than standard, which is approx
2520 bitrate. If you want, try w/1900 see if that minimum is acceptable.
and finally work your way down, till you see your video (or not) in
bad quality ie, blocks, pixelation, etc. Then, start moving bitrate
back up in 100k's ie, 1900, then 2000, then 2100, etc.
Note, not all DVD movies are the same quality or level of quality.
So, just because you got away with a bitrate of 1900 doesn't mean you
will get away with it in another movie. So, make note of that.
But, as a beginner, perhaps its not best to mess w/ bitrate or any other
setting till you've become accustome to SVCD encoding processes.
But, then again, how are you gonna learn w/out trying? So, give the above
a shot over the weekend and share your results here.
Don't get too frustrated, and, have fun while you're at it though.

Well, back to my DV cam projects. Gotta love this hobby!!
Have a good evening all.

UPDATE - made minor spelling revisions, etc.
kwag, you can pm me about those apps I just talked about above
since they're not exactly on this SUBJ's post here - thanks
-vhelp

[poopyhead]

vhelp,

i understand what you're talking in terms of relative quality. however, there has to be a comparison made.

i.e. when i was solely viewing heavily compressed rips (i.e. nAVI and ASF)....i thought the Matrix screener (VHS) was great..... since i had not even seen an original DVD movie (at least not for an entire movie), i wasn't used to such a quality. hence, those compressed rips seemed great. however, after watching original DVDs and high quality SVCDs (>2mbit/s), i can easily tell the quality difference. even high quality SVCDs can't compare to the >6 mbit/s encode of the DVDs. there were obvious differences even between high quality SVCDs and DVDs (on the TV, but more obvious on the computer)...

1) high action scenes
2) fast moving backgrounds
3) lotta things in the backgrounds
4) any combo of the above

i.e. movies w/ scenes in sports stadiums are a big pain in the ass to encode. with so many cheering fans in the background, these scenes require heavy loads of bitrate..otherwise, even >2 mbit/s SVCDs will have mucho blocks

now, for people who aren't used to high quality SVCDs or DVDs or just don't mind, having 1-2 disc rips would be perfect. however, with high quality SVCDs being called "near DVD quality" and still with visible lower quality than DVDs, comparing kvcd to these SVCDs, let alone to the original DVDs doesn't seem to make sense in terms of quality. there is no way that a 2 CD kvcd can be of the quality that kwag claims. i'm sure if kvcds were played next to SVCDs and DVDs, people will be able to tell the difference.

kwag can promote kvcd's fitting on less CDs than the rest, but in terms of quality, kwag shouldn't make claims about quality vs. SVCDs and DVDs

----

btw, vhelp......sony dvd players are notorious for not supporting anything other than standard VCDs....(lotta don't even support standard SVCD)..also, i have a pioneer, which has great support for non-standard stuff

[vhelp]

Poopyhead,
yes, I do agree w/ you too, 1 through 4. There's no getting
around the quality thing. But, I think we are using an invisble
scale a based on such, we (that's all of us) are using our
own scale when judging another's encode. We need a standard
scale to weigh or judge an encode (whom ever they may be from)

i.e. when i was solely viewing heavily compressed rips (i.e. nAVI and ASF)....i thought the Matrix screener (VHS) was great..... since i had not even seen an original DVD movie (at least not for an entire movie), i wasn't used to such a quality. hence, those compressed rips seemed great. however, after watching original DVDs and high quality SVCDs (>2mbit/s), i can easily tell the quality difference.

I can remember doing my first VHS to VCD, using my ATW and
DVC I usb card. At first, I thought they looked great, till
I started comparing to DVDs, and seeing other VCD samples over
the web. I remember, it was Star Wars I

When I post my samples (which, by the way, am long over due) I
post in hopes that they be used as a gauge (at least for the
newbies or those having difficulty in their encodes)
I also provide them as examples of quality. At times, I may
paint a picture of them and quality (ie, very good quality, etc)
but I don't think I've ever said DVD quality. Maybe I did,
but I HOPE I didn't, he, he... I usually just say they're in
very good quaity or good quality or something like that. I
should start scaling them maybe.

Anyways, my take on the whole quality issue is this.
* You got the DVD. Thats the quality their.
* Next, you want to make an arvhival copy so you can view THAT
.. copy in as best quality as possible for viewing pleasure.
* But, as long as you have the DVD, who cares just how good you
.. can make your archival copy in comparison to your DVD.
.. DVD-to-Archival purposes are just that. Backups to look at
.. while protecting your originals. On occasion, you may want to
.. look at true DVD quality (your choise and mine) or, maybe you
.. have friends over, and want to feel that true DVD look
.. nothing will beat the true DVD look and feel.
* captures are another issue. Obviously, captures are less than
.. DVD quality like. And, as such, its expected to not look
.. DVD quality.

Perhaps a scale needs to be developed, but a standard scale that
we all can agree on and use for gauging quality on a level.
ie, a scale w/range could be:
* 1 to 10, (w/ 2 being VHS, 6 being Satalite, and 10 being DVD)

..[VHS.VCD.Cable]..[Satalite]...[DVD]....
.....1......2......3.........4.5.6.7.....8.9.10...

...one could judge their encodes as such, and others here, can look
and make their judging too, however may be lower or higher, based
on the above scale (if it were to become the standard gauge on
this FORUM)

No one should ever get beyond 10 of course, however, you could get
below 1, he, he...(crap in crap out)

So, remember:
* VHS has a range, 1 to 3
* VCD, hmmmm, usually at VHS quality or less, hence, VHS range.
* Satalite, 4 to 7
* DVD 8 to 10

So, ie for Satalite:
if 7 was optimum or original quality for Sat, then 4,5,6 would be about
the best one could achieve. You'll never get 7 unless you have the
original MPEG-2 that the station was using, and just re-MUXed the video
w/out Commericias, etc.

So, ie for DVD:
if 10 was optimum or original quality for DVD, then 8,9 would be about
the best one could achieve. You'll never get 10 unless you have the
original MPEG-2 thats on the DVD (VOB) and just re-MUXed the video.

hmmm, perhaps I should start applying this new scale to my samples
when I post new ones.

Sorry, but since nobody else was thinking of such a scale, I took
it upon myself to come up w/ one. Revise as you see fit 8)

-vhelp

[poopyhead]

vhelp,

not everyone rips for "archival" purposes.....perhaps if someone is just archiving a DVD that they own, quality would not matter as much...

for those that rip as the only copy of the movie, quality may be more of a concern....

i'm not sure about the rest, but i tend to fall more towards the latter group, as i only feel like paying that much more for a DVD if the movie was good (i.e. matrix)

[Lua]

does anyone know if KVCDX3 is ok for DVD Pioneer DV333?

[vitualis]

Yes, it will play those Standard VCD or SVCD or DVD perfect and w/out glitches. But, throw in an encode not standard into one of these so called top notch dvd player ie SONY and it will throw a fit, like blocks and stuff.

But, play the same in an cheaper DVD player, ie Apex AD-1500, and all of the sudden, quality is great! You see, some players will skimp on Standard or tight specifications and aiming to satisfiy customers, it/they created such dvd players w/ room to spare ie, bitrate, etc.

Yes, this can happen and it is a trade off.

If the comments of this forum are anything to go by, however, general video playback quality tends to be better on a mid to top end player (when compared to the low end Apex models). That is, DVDs and VCDs tend to play with better video quality (one presumes that these players filter the video).

However, you are right, some of the cheaper players will play off-spec discs better.

Beyond the video specs there are other considerations. Apex being only loosely adherent to VCD specs (and in their new players, there is no VCD playback at all), the PBC interpretation has been reported to be substandard. That means, those of you who want to author complex menus and chapters on a VCD may have difficulty them to play properly / as intended on an Apex machine. For example, it has been fairly clearly demonstrated in one of the threads at the VCDImager forums, the Apex AD-1500 does not reliable parse <bsn> values greater than 1. What does this mean?

On my VCDs, I will often make "scene select" screens and the selection of the chapter will involve pressing a numerical entry equivalent to the chapter number. For example, on the second page of scene select, the first chapter may be "chapter 5" and so I logically want to select it by pressing "5". In such a circumstance, the BSN value should be 5. It appears, that the Apex machine in question could not reliably interpret this simple functionality.

The end message? Be careful of what you buy... and don't just buy a player because it claims to be able to play everything under the sun. How well it plays it is important also.

Regards.