Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > One click suites for DVD backup and DVD creation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13th February 2003, 18:01   #1  |  Link
BinyaminGavriel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Operating Room
Posts: 26
a little about x(s)vcd

I've been reading a little lately about the X(S)VCD "format." Can anyone explain to me some of the advantages and disadvantages? Up 'til now I've typically been (following the old SBC guide) encoding movies in divx wth nandub at a resolution of 640*352, bitrate set around 1050 or so, whatever fits comfortably on 1 or 2 CD's.
I want to keep my resolution so I have letterbox, not squared off, output, and I want to keep a good picture, and a smaller file size if possible. Will XSVCD allow for this?
thanks
BinyaminGavriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2003, 18:19   #2  |  Link
WorldBook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: somewhere in this world
Posts: 145
Basically in an (x)(s)vcd you can use the mpeg-1 or mpeg-2 file systems, while setting the resolution and bitrate as high or low as you like.

The only advantage is that an (x)(s)vcd may be playable in some (not all) stand-alone dvd players. However, a disadvantage is that NERO will not give you more than 700 mb to burn.

If you don't want to watch your encodes on a dvd player (standalone) then there is no reason to to create an (x)(s)vcd.
__________________
the digital world---all 0's and 1's
WorldBook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2003, 19:59   #3  |  Link
jshumate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 200
The letterbox shouldn't be a problem, but file size might be. Smaller file sizes in (X)(S)VCD result from lower bit rates, which lower quality. You can have smaller files at lower quality or much larger files at higher quality. Your choice. (X)(S)VCD is really a very different animal from DivX.
jshumate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2003, 22:38   #4  |  Link
BinyaminGavriel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Operating Room
Posts: 26
@worldbook:
Although I don't need to play on a stand-alone player, I was under the impression that if burned as a vcd, you can fit more data on a disc (no error correction and all that.
Furthermore, I took a 700 MB avi that I had encoded and converted it to an mpg using TMPGEnc, and it ended up 545 MB. So besides for the ability to burn more on disc as vcd, is the format inherently more compressible?
BinyaminGavriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2003, 22:42   #5  |  Link
WorldBook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: somewhere in this world
Posts: 145
MPEG-4 offers the best compression atm. Turning a 700 mb into a 545mb mpeg-1 file does not mean that mpeg-1 provides better compression. The avi file could be uncompressed (unlikely but possible), a bad encode, or very short in length. If it is a good encode, I Think you will notice that the AVI file has better quality than the MPEG-1 file you have converted it to.

Creating a vcd or svcd will allow you to burn in mode-2 (no error correction). However, if you stray from the vcd or svcd specification, and decide to create an x(s)vcd then NERO will allow you to burn only 703 mb in mode-1.
__________________
the digital world---all 0's and 1's
WorldBook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2003, 22:56   #6  |  Link
BinyaminGavriel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Operating Room
Posts: 26
ok, so I can't burn XSVCD in Nero, but is there a way to burn it so that I can get more than 700 MB peer CD? What about using the CDRAO function of VCDEasy? (I could be way off, I don't fully understand all of the concepts involved).
Theoretically, comparing an XSVCD and an avi encoded at same bitrate and resolution, which should be a larger file? Better quality?
thanks
BinyaminGavriel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2003, 08:17   #7  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,296
Quote:
Originally posted by BinyaminGavriel

Theoretically, comparing an XSVCD and an avi encoded at same bitrate and resolution, which should be a larger file? Better quality?
thanks
If you have two movie files of exactly the same bitrate and exactly the same length, the filesize should be (almost) the same.

AVI does not mean that a specific codec has been used to compress the video although the usual ones are DivX or XviD. If the file has been compressed with any of these, it should look better than a MPEG-2 file (XSVCD that is) with a same average bitrate.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 01:31   #8  |  Link
segfault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24
Quote:
However, if you stray from the vcd or svcd specification, and decide to create an x(s)vcd then NERO will allow you to burn only 703 mb in mode-1.
I wasn't aware of this. I've been burning 800MB KVCDS in Nero for quite some time now, so I guess I'd better stop doing that, huh? Just uncheck the "create standard compliant CD" box and all should be good.
Quote:
What about using the CDRAO function of VCDEasy?
If you are having trouble with Nero, you can use VCDEasy to create a .bin file and cue sheet that you can burn with Nero, or the latest version supports Nero's ASPI layer so you can burn directly with VCDEasy.
Quote:
Furthermore, I took a 700 MB avi that I had encoded and converted it to an mpg using TMPGEnc, and it ended up 545 MB. So besides for the ability to burn more on disc as vcd, is the format inherently more compressible?
I think you're missing what's actually happening. Every time you compress your video, it loses quality. Period. Your MPEG file size is a function of the bitrate you chose to encode it at and has nothing to do with the quality of your video or its compressability relative to DivX. If you look carefully at it, you will see that your MPEG is far poorer quality than your AVI, and you could just as easily end up with a 1GB file by turning up the bitrate and still have a worse file than you started with.
Quote:
Theoretically, comparing an XSVCD and an avi encoded at same bitrate and resolution, which should be a larger file? Better quality?
The MPEG-4 codecs like DivX and XviD will give the highest quality per bit. To achieve the same quality between (S)VCD and DivX, the SVCD will use a higher bitrate, although Kwag and company over at www.kvcd.net are closing the gap somewhat. The only reason to make VCDs is if you want to watch them on a standalone DVD player and TV. I do, so that's why I use the format.
segfault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 01:35   #9  |  Link
WorldBook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: somewhere in this world
Posts: 145
I have unchecked the "standard compliance box" however whenever the resolution of a vcd or svcd is different from say 352x288 or 480x480 for NTSC I can't burn more than 700 mb...Maybe in a kvcd you only change the bitrate, while mainting the same resolution of that of a pal/ntsc (s)vcd?

BTW A divx should always have a lower bitrate than an (x)svcd. With divx at 2-pass 1-2 mbps should be great.
__________________
the digital world---all 0's and 1's
WorldBook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 01:49   #10  |  Link
segfault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24
Are you sure you have a current version of Nero? I encode DVD rips at 544x480 and VHS caps at 352x480, with non-standard GOPs and bitrates. All my MPEGs are in the 780-800MB range, and Nero has never failed to burn them.
segfault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 06:01   #11  |  Link
WorldBook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: somewhere in this world
Posts: 145
No I don't have the latest. What version do you have? Mine is:

5.5.9.0

Pretty old....I guess it's time to upgrade. Thanks for your info
__________________
the digital world---all 0's and 1's
WorldBook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 07:57   #12  |  Link
segfault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24
5.5.10.7
segfault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2003, 16:55   #13  |  Link
WorldBook
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: somewhere in this world
Posts: 145
hehehe

I'm stuck with old stuff. It's time for me to upgrade
__________________
the digital world---all 0's and 1's
WorldBook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2003, 18:15   #14  |  Link
DivXerouS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My 2 Cents

I've been making SVCD's for a while now, and discovered the soo called X(S)VCD format maybe a half a year ago. X means Xtended or Non Standard, see I didn't know that, I actually had to figure that out myself. I had been hearing about how "damn good" the XSVCD's were coming out and thought it was something new, but infact it has been around for a while now. TMPGEnc Film Template can create XMpeg's or non Standard Mpegs, Im not sure whether I should put SVCD's, but you get my point. Usually when you create the Mpeg2's or Mpeg1's using the Film templates for TMPEGEnc you can squeeze a lot more bitrate and get a very very high quality depending on your file as well. [Trash In Trash Out]. Usually the files can be about 800+ MB's, I usualy make 815MB's Mpeg's.



Now for the burning problem.

Yes Nero can burn Non Standard Mpeg's. Up to 827MB's MAX that I've done, but anything above 800MB's WILL require you to ENABLE Overburn, If you burner supports it. Nero In my opinion is not really a good program and is only good for burning images. The best one that I've used is VCDEasy to create Images and then burn it using Nero.

Well that was my 2 Cents I hope this information was helpful.


DivXerouS
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2003, 01:51   #15  |  Link
shinakuma8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 26
why would you burn vcd/svcd in mode1? you always burn them in mode2. and in mode2, you should be able to burn 800meg easy without overburning. the highest I've burned is 830 meg with overburn, roughly a 82'30" track. the most my cds will support.
shinakuma8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2003, 06:27   #16  |  Link
jorel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by shinakuma8
why would you burn vcd/svcd in mode1? you always burn them in mode2. and in mode2, you should be able to burn 800meg easy without overburning. the highest I've burned is 830 meg with overburn, roughly a 82'30" track. the most my cds will support.
maybe all answers :
yes! need tests!

all about kvcd:

http://kvcd.net/forum

try it.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.