My suggestions for a good SVCD encode

telemike · 29th October 2003, 21:59

Here are my suggestions........take them with a grain of gold

1. Use DVD2SVCD
2. Use CCE (I use 2.50)
3. Use Tylo's D2SRoba plugin
4. Use OPV 1-pass VBR with Tylo's plugin.
5. I used to use filters but they slow me down (CCE speed .98 without, .5 with)
6. I use Bilinear Resize, it's fast and looks good to me
7. For 1-cd encodes I use audio bitrate of 128K, 2 CD's I sue 160K.
8. I burn the bin/cue files with VCDEasy.

Hoepfully these help some newbies make some decisions and have some good encodes.

Search the forums for where to get Tylo's plugin (hint: advanced forum)

Trahald · 31st October 2003, 02:49

2. imho 2.67 is alot more stable

5. yeah.. i try to avoid them as well. the small help they are in compressing isnt worth the speed hit

6. i only use bilinear or simple resize for 1 disk encodes. i think lancsoz makes a crisper final svcd when im not concerned about final size

7. audio 96 always

having said that i think your settings are fine .. the above is just my basic decision process

ralphthedog · 31st October 2003, 05:48

Sounds about right Telemike.

I'm with Wookiee on the CCE 2.67 issue though, I seem to get better encodes with my PAL stuff anyway.

I like 192 or 224kbps audio for the sake of my big home theatre system (I always do 2cd SVCD's though).

The only filters I use these days are undot() and unfilter(-5,-5), minimal slowing down of CCE and a bit of help with compression.

telemike · 31st October 2003, 11:32

I've played with 2.67 and it seems to be a tad slower than 2.50 on my system. I have not had any problems with 2.50 so I've been sticking with that. I still can use 2.67 if I want.

I tend to pick 160K for audio for my home theater too.

ralphthedog · 1st November 2003, 03:16

I stuck with CCE 2.50 for ages, I didn't think the later ones were any better until 2.67.

Maybe CCE 2.67 does a slightly better job on my interlaced PAL stuff than 2.50, that's the majority of what I do. The whole template thing works really nicely too.

I did a bit of speed type comparison when I first changed to 2.67, didn't notice a real difference, but I think 2.67 speed is effected by higher or lower bitrates more than 2.5........but it might just be my imagination.

My ears think that 160kbps or less audio tends to get a bit thin, and starts to lose the lower frequencies. I'm happy to use 160 for 2ch stereo sources from older stuff that maybe doesn't have really good audio.

29th October 2003, 21:59	#1 \| Link
telemike Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Monsters, Inc. Posts: 180	My suggestions for a good SVCD encode Here are my suggestions........take them with a grain of gold 1. Use DVD2SVCD 2. Use CCE (I use 2.50) 3. Use Tylo's D2SRoba plugin 4. Use OPV 1-pass VBR with Tylo's plugin. 5. I used to use filters but they slow me down (CCE speed .98 without, .5 with) 6. I use Bilinear Resize, it's fast and looks good to me 7. For 1-cd encodes I use audio bitrate of 128K, 2 CD's I sue 160K. 8. I burn the bin/cue files with VCDEasy. Hoepfully these help some newbies make some decisions and have some good encodes. Search the forums for where to get Tylo's plugin (hint: advanced forum)

31st October 2003, 02:49	#2 \| Link
Trahald Wewkiee Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: kashyyyk Posts: 2,269	2. imho 2.67 is alot more stable 5. yeah.. i try to avoid them as well. the small help they are in compressing isnt worth the speed hit 6. i only use bilinear or simple resize for 1 disk encodes. i think lancsoz makes a crisper final svcd when im not concerned about final size 7. audio 96 always having said that i think your settings are fine .. the above is just my basic decision process __________________ ...yeah...but...why on earth would I compare apples with apples?

31st October 2003, 05:48	#3 \| Link
ralphthedog Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 181	Sounds about right Telemike. I'm with Wookiee on the CCE 2.67 issue though, I seem to get better encodes with my PAL stuff anyway. I like 192 or 224kbps audio for the sake of my big home theatre system (I always do 2cd SVCD's though). The only filters I use these days are undot() and unfilter(-5,-5), minimal slowing down of CCE and a bit of help with compression.

31st October 2003, 11:32	#4 \| Link
telemike Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Monsters, Inc. Posts: 180	I've played with 2.67 and it seems to be a tad slower than 2.50 on my system. I have not had any problems with 2.50 so I've been sticking with that. I still can use 2.67 if I want. I tend to pick 160K for audio for my home theater too.

1st November 2003, 03:16	#5 \| Link
ralphthedog Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 181	I stuck with CCE 2.50 for ages, I didn't think the later ones were any better until 2.67. Maybe CCE 2.67 does a slightly better job on my interlaced PAL stuff than 2.50, that's the majority of what I do. The whole template thing works really nicely too. I did a bit of speed type comparison when I first changed to 2.67, didn't notice a real difference, but I think 2.67 speed is effected by higher or lower bitrates more than 2.5........but it might just be my imagination. My ears think that 160kbps or less audio tends to get a bit thin, and starts to lose the lower frequencies. I'm happy to use 160 for 2ch stereo sources from older stuff that maybe doesn't have really good audio.