VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 26 of 26
  1. Hi,

    I have been creating VCD like there is no tomorrow and they are looking fine. However, I have some source which are quality wise better than VCD. So, I figured, I'll use SVCD. However, I don't want to have a movie split on 20 CD's, I was aiming for two CD's. It seems however that you have great quality if you use 3 or more, with 2 it actually looks like it's worse then VCD. Isn't that a newer MPEG compression and supposed to be smaller with the same quality? Am I doing something wrong? Anybody got a SVCD template?

    cheers,
    chris
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    San Diego
    Search Comp PM
    I suggest you read the "What is" on both VCD and SVCD there in the left hand nav bar.

    In a nutshell, SVCD allows for higher resolution (480x480) vs VCD's 352x240.

    Thus, SVCD's will ALWAYS be larger.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Search Comp PM
    <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 2001-09-06 14:20:22, Beretta wrote:
    I suggest you read the "What is" on both VCD and SVCD there in the left hand nav bar.

    In a nutshell, SVCD allows for higher resolution (480x480) vs VCD's 352x240.

    Thus, SVCD's will ALWAYS be larger.
    </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
    I agree. Reading the whatis and howto sections helps a lot.
    btw, the filesize depends on the bitrates, not the resolution.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Yes, but SVCD also uses mpeg-2, a superior compression algorithm. So it seems to me that one could fit a 100 minute movie on two discs if they were encoded well. But any longer most likely won't fit.


    Darryl
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Search Comp PM
    yes, I think you can fit 100 minutes high quality MPEG on 2 CDs. If you play around with filters and stuff, you can fit even more. The most I have managed are 76min on a 80min CD. Well, the encoding process have taken quite long
    Don't think MPEG-1 is worse than MPEG-2. It isn't. @ the usual used bitrates (1500-2500) there isn't a visual difference.
    Quote Quote  
  6. At the same bitrate and resoltion MPEG1 and MPEG2 compression produce the same quaility. The real difference between MPEG1 and MPEG2 is the in specs/standards. MPEG2 allows for interlaced material, multiple audio tracks, higher resolutions, higher bitrates, multiple angles, etc. etc.

    So there's no inrease in video quailiy using MPEG2 vs. MPEG1 (at the same resolution and bitrate). I use MPEG2 because it allows me to do things you can't w/ MPEG1 (mostly support for interlaced material).
    Quote Quote  
  7. So, if you encode an AVI, first with 352x240, in MPG1, then encoded the same AVI 352x240 in MPG2 with the same amount of interlacing and no extra audio tracks or anything like that, wouldn't the MPG2 file be smaller in this case?
    Quote Quote  
  8. Duhh... true, totally forgot that the size is different. Too bad you can't do SVCD at VCD resolution (which would decrease filesize). Still, since MPEG2 is far superior, shouldn't it be at least equal in size with SVCD just having a different resolution?

    cheers,
    chris
    Quote Quote  
  9. Just a reminder to all concerned here - SIZE DOESN"T MATTER. Only bitrate matters.

    An 1150 bitrate VCD and an 1150 Bitrate 480 x 480 SVCD and an 1150 Bitrate 720 x 480 XSVCD will all be "roughly" the same size - it's the bitrate that determines the size - it's got nothing to do with the size of the image. The size of the image only determines how many bits the bitrate gets spread over, and of course, the more bits to encode for a given bitrate, the crappier the image will look.

    I fit 120 minutes of high quality MPeg on 2 CDs all the time - just requires keeping the letterboxing to multiples of 16 pixels, and using 3 or 4 pass VBR with CCE.
    Quote Quote  
  10. There is a noticeable difference in quality between VCD and SVCD. Besides the obviously better algorithm of MPEG-2 as oppesed to the MPEG-1 algorithm the differences in frame sizes (352x240 verses 480x480) makes for a sharper image. The larger frame size and higher bitrates of course adds to ultimately larger file sizes for SVCD.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Let's try this again. The resolution has NO AFFECT (well virtually no affect) on the size of the encoded MPEG. It's depending on the bitrate.

    Now as for quaility, 720x480 at 900kbit/s will look worst than a 352x240 @ 900kbit/s because that bitrate will be 'spread out' over more 'blocks of video' as it were.

    The compression schemes of MPEG1 and MPEG2 are virtually the same. The main difference is that MPEG2 has support for things (eg. interlacing) that MPEG1 does not.

    A 480x480 MPEG1 encode at 1500kbit/s will look the same as a 480x280 MPEG2 encode at 1500kbit (for a pregressive source, remember MPEG1 doesn't support interlacing).

    For that matter, a 30min 720x480 encode at 1500kbit/s will be the same size as a 30min 352x240 encode at 1500kbit/s.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    If anyone wants details, let me know. But Im getting up to 106 minutes on a single 80-minute CD. 480x480, MPEG-2, 128 or 112k audio. And better than VCD! I'm actually preparing to make a new thead discussing it, but I want to sort out some details with it first.

    If anyone wants to call me a liar, do so now.
    Quote Quote  
  13. I just put Gladiator (155 min) on 2 cd's in svcd and it looks way better than my scary movie (80 min) vcd. that's amazing, considering the movie is twice as long and still better quality
    Quote Quote  
  14. <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 2001-09-07 15:57:39, Vejita-sama wrote:
    The compression schemes of MPEG1 and MPEG2 are virtually the same. The main difference is that MPEG2 has support for things (eg. interlacing) that MPEG1 does not.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

    Actually, I'm pretty sure that this is not true. MPEG-2 is not the same as MPEG-1 though there are many similaries. The encoding system in MPEG-2 is more advanced. This should be obvious when you consider the requirements needed to encode and decode MPEG-1 vs. MPEG-2.

    Regards.
    Michael Tam
    w: Morsels of Evidence
    Quote Quote  
  15. The only substantial difference between MPEG1 and MPEG2 is that MPEG1 encodes on 16x16 blocks, whereas MPEG2 encodes on 16x8 blocks. The type of compression applied to those blocks is essentially the same, given equivalent bitrate and resolution. I'm sure this information is available in the MPEG specifications, if anyone wants to verify.

    The fact that it is encoding on 2x many pixel blocks accounts for the higher requirements for performing MPEG2 encoding.

    Interesting tidbit: MPEG1, yes lowly MPEG1, allows for encoding video up to 4095x4095 at bitrates up to 100 Mpbs or thereabout. Presumably, no one has come up with any reason to do so...
    Quote Quote  
  16. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    If you want to test mpeg 1 Vs mpeg 2, just encode one file with the sefy's templates: SeVCD (mpeg1) and SxVCD (mpeg2).
    Those "formats", use VBR, same resolution, same bitrate, same encoder... Except one thing: One is mpeg2 and one is mpeg 1.
    My conclusions: Mpeg 2: Less artifacts, better colours...
    Mpeg 1: Smoother picture...
    Sharpness? Mpeg 2 definately!

    File size? Mpeg 1 produce smaller files.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Lets indeed try it again. There seems to be several wannabe "experts" here that like to hold court which is a diservice to newbies. I don't subscribe to who shouts the loudest or writes the longest posts or reponds the most times to be "expert". In fact my experince with forums and newsgroups which approaches twenty years is the exact opposite. Shame some forums attract some who's personality need more ego stroking then simply getting gratification they may have helped somebody. How sad.
    Quote Quote  
  18. So speedy, what are you? You make a statement that people talking in this forum are doing a disservice - Well, if that's true - spell it out, man.......

    You seem to be responding to Vejita-sama's (and mine by implication) post. If you think that we're wrong (we're not) say so......

    If you're talking about any of the other posts, I certainly see nothing posted that makes your statement true - nobody has said anything that is serously wrong.

    Shame that some forums attract people who just want to cause trouble. These are FORUMS - that's where people DISCUSS things - and that's what is happening here - get a grip.
    Quote Quote  
  19. SatStorm - you say better colors and sharpness with MPEG2. But you didn't bother to say what your display device was. That can have a huge impact on those paramenters.

    More importantly, you chose the SeVCD and SxVCD templates as your mode of comparison. Unfortunately, both those templates use an average bitrate of 1150. It is generally accepted that MPEG2 has greater difficulty with very low bitrates (less than 1500).

    Skittelson once provided a link to the NTSC test pattern. When I encoded it using both MPEG1 and MPEG2 at identical parameters with an average bitrate of 2300, the only minor artifact was that the MPEG1 had a little more edge noise (the Gibb's effect, I believe its called). The magnitude of edge noise that was visible would only matter to animation, and probably only if you're really picky. For non-animation video, at a sufficient bitrate (and resolution!), there is virtually no difference between MPEG1 and MPEG2.

    It also helps if you clarify what exactly you are seeing when you say "artifacts", too.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Hey VidGuy, now you're trying to lecture. Maybe you should cool it. Your temper is getting the best of you.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I, for one, wanna clear the air here...

    I don't consider myself a "wanna-be" expert... and when I mentioned my experience with SVCD at lower bitrates, I wasn't trying to get in anyone's face or pretend I know it all...

    I was merely saying that MY experience was that I could get MPEG-2 video at higher res, better quality than the MPEG-1's I was doing at the same bitrate. Well, sharper picture anyway.

    This does NOT mean that I'm trying to lead newbies "astray"... nor is anyone else in this thread!
    Quote Quote  
  22. The original questions were is SVCD bigger than VCD as far as file size? Yes, unless you fudge the bitrate. Is image quality better with SVCD? Again YES unless again you fudge the bitrate. I find it distracting and frustrating when people as well meaning as they may be answer questions not asked, which borders on pontificating. Why was it necessary for a couple guys to quip if you use the same bitrate the image quality is the same in SVD and SVCD? Not only is that itself misleading and not totally accurate, most people will use SVCD because it DOES support higher bitrates than plain VCD. As even these guys said, higher bitrates = a better quality image.

    Perhaps I'm more sensentive to that kind of thing more than most since I use to be a regular in CIWAH, a very up tight big eight newsgroup that was inhabitied by a small handful of "experts" always lecturing that were in fact just up tight prima donnas that couldn't put together a web site if their life depended on it.

    I'm not accusing anyone of anything, however comments like 'get a grip', 'and you think that we're wrong (we're not)' remind me of that newsgroup where everyone was expected to sit quietly and listen and not argue with the self appointed know-it-alls.

    I'm new these forums. I'm just feeling my way. If that's how some of the forums are, someone tell me now, because I'm not one to sit on my hands and listen especially when I hear flat out wrong, incomplete or misleading comments which seem self-serving.
    Quote Quote  
  23. speedy, the original question was answered in the first several posts.

    There is no reason why any particular thread cannot deviate from the original topic especially if it has already been answered.

    From reading this entire thread, no one has been posing as some sort of "expert" and this has been a civil discussion and suggestions on a variety of things.

    If you disagree with someone on an issue, then say you do and also post the reason why. This is the entire point to a forum -- discussion.

    If you think that this is a forum where "everyone is expected to site quitely and listen and not argue" then you are very mistaken indeed. However, your insulting manner and attitude is neither needed or welcome.

    Regards.

    _________________
    Michael Tam

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vitualis on 2001-09-08 20:29:24 ]</font>
    Quote Quote  
  24. This thread has gone the way of most that discuss this topic. I prefer SVCD to VCD but that is just a personal preferrence. But what I've noticed in these types of threads makes any conclusions impossible because of the following:

    1. These things always start out as a comparision between VCD and SVCD which is simple enough.

    2. People start to get fast and loose with the definitions of both.

    3. Pretty soon the discussion turns into an Mpeg1 vs Mpeg2 thing. 480x480 Mpeg1 at 2.5 mps vs 480x480 Mpeg2 at 2.5 mps or something like that. Who cares?

    4. What ever happened to original VCD vs SVCD question?

    It happens over and over again. If the discussion remains limited to authentic VCD and SVCD specifications then there may be an opportunity for some conclusions. But it never happens that way.

    I guess some people just think that VCD is anything Mpeg1 and SVCD is anything Mpeg2. I disagree.
    Quote Quote  
  25. <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 2001-09-08 20:22:10, vitualis wrote:

    There is no reason why any particular thread cannot deviate from the original topic especially if it has already been answered.
    _________________
    Michael Tam

    </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

    Point well taken. And I agree, especially when the original topic is something concerning VCD vs SVCD. It will always degenerate into mush.
    Quote Quote  
  26. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    @ kinneera
    Sorry for my english, seems that I am getting drunk all the time, and I write bad...
    Anyway, I am not an expert, and I don't know if I will became one once...
    About the display: If you want to play a clip/movie to a computer, you go to DiVX When you encode to VCD, SVCD, etc, you encode for the standalones... Why to encode to SVCD to play it from PC? Divx do ti better there...
    So, I am talking about TV and Standalone.
    For a 29" 100Hz Nokia TV and for a sharp LCD Videoprojector, with about 2,5 meters display....
    My eyes see that mpeg 2 ( (x)SVCD ) is better than mpeg 1 ( (x)VCD). Maybe other people eyes see different. That's why I say "my conclussion".
    I see less blocks with Sefy's SxVCD than Sefy's SeVCD. Better colours and better sharpness too. But, SeVCD is smoother and smaller as a file.
    I also saw satellite mpeg 2 transmissions with 700kb/s looking great to my satellite receivers. Only a few blocks.....
    Finally, my opinion with all this, is that today's Mpeg 2 encoders ain't yet good enough as the Mpeg 1 encoders.

    About forums: Ignore what some people want: The Mess up. Just Ignore... It is the only solution
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!