Divx questions...why use it instead of MPG?

[angelleye]

I've been learning all about video capture and encoding to divx for a little while now. I use GKnot to do DVD rips/encodes and I've been using Dr. Divx with my captures.

I've been capturing with Huffy and encoding to Divx/MP3 audio with great results. I've noticed however in d/l movies and videos off the internet that a LOT of them are mpgs. Usually any TV shows I d/l...comedy routines, etc. always VCD mpg. When I look at them with AVIcodec it shows that they're usually over 1000 with video bitrate....usually 320 audio bitrate...and the file sizes are not very big.

So...I guess my question is this. Where does the advantage come in using Huffy and encoding to divx instead of just using the preset VCD capture setting in the ATI software? I just tested with the VCD setting capturing an hour long George Carlin routine off HBO. The final output was 58 min long...600MB file...1133 video bitrate and 224 audio bitrate. It also looks just fine on the computer and on the TV.

So...why go through the entire process of encoding to divx...worrying about audio synch problems...and the 4 hour long or longer process it takes when I can just capture with the mpg VCD and be done?

Any information on this would be great. I know there's gotta be a reason...is it simply resolution quality? Thanks!

[int 21h]

Anything other than 1150 kbit/sec video, 224 kbit/sec audio (MPEG1 of course) is not a VCD by definition...

Most people use DivX (or XviD) for television shows because of the decreased filesize. Not to be a troll, but, I suggest you test things out yourself, capture two similar 30 minute sitcoms with the two formats and compare the results.

Sheep listen to the shepherd, but wolves use cunning to find the answer on their own.. which are you?

[killingspree]

besides the fact that you are close to violating rule 6 (http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm), have you ever looked at the quality of a mpeg1 video stream and compared it to an divx/xvid - mpeg4 stream with the same bitrate?

i promise you, you'll be amazed at how big the difference is!

anyway, as always, go for the method that works best for you and that gives you the results you desire! :)

cheers
steVe

[angelleye]

sorry about that...wasn't thinking. and yeah...I have been doing some comparisons here as of late...should have done that before I ever posted. heh. thanks for your info.

[ammck55]

@angelleye--Check your mailbox. :) There's a note in there for you, IIRC, you had requested that someone move the thread in question. User CP > Private Messages. Lots of neat options on that page!

ammck55

[ppera2]

I will talk here only about captures from TV and VHS:

Normal TV program has much more details than VCD, so people like to save it in some bigger res than 352x288. No problem to capturing in 720x576 with today's average PC. To place 1,5-2 hours on one 700 MB CD, DivX is best solution. It's simple - set all, and let machine to encode it in two pass during night.

VHS: resolution (detail level) is much less than TV, so it has no much sense to store it over 352x288. However, even for VHS, some experts recommend to capturing in 352x576.

[Kika]

However, even for VHS, some experts recommend to capturing in 352x576.

That's because VHS-Resolution IS something arround 352x576.
VHS records 2 Fields to store the interlaced Video. With only 288 Lines, you have only VCD-Resolution without any interlacing.

[ppera2]

Right, but VCD has no interlace too...
Anyway, with kvcd templates it can be useful to make nonstandard (S)VCD with 352x576, up to 100 min on one 700 MB CD. But quality is still better with DivX.

[Kika]

Right, but VCD has no interlace too...

That's exactly what i wrote...

352x576 is a Resolution, i often use. Before i had my DVD-Burner to produce CVDs, now to put a lot of Video onto a DVD.
If you put only up to 50-60 Minutes onto 800 MB-Disk (depands on the Source), you can beat DivX, because you can use interlaced Encoding (if necessary). But you are right, in most cases, DivX is the better way to put lots of Video onto a Disc.

[ppera2]

DivX is good for interlaced video too. Only old 3.11 is not.

However, interlace just makes problems, you must keep vertical size etc... I don't see why should force it for TV watching when progressive is good for me. Only badly deinterlaced material is not good. I have mostly movies in collection, so interlace is rare guest by me :)

[Kika]

so interlace is rare guest by me

Yeah, this depents on the Source. Most of the Source i'm working with is from Cameras or very badly converted Videos (NTSC->PAL by blending and such things). So from my point of view, interlaced Video is very important.

BTW: I've tried interlaced Encoding with DivX, it doesn't impressed me. OK, that's maybe because i have much more experiences with interlaced MPEG2... ;)

[dragongodz]

1 small correction. vcd uses a maximum of 1150 in the original specs. that means lower values are still in spec though you may not like the quality. yes i know just about every program now days says 1150 only but that doesnt make it right. :)

[Kika]

To be correct: VCD uses 1374 kbps (Audio + Video) in CBR. This, and ONLY this followes the Specs. Lower Bitrates are out of Specs, definatly!

[dragongodz]

kika sorry but you are wrong. yes the 1150 i was talking about is the video bitrate. it is the max bitrate. need proof ? ok go here
http://www.icdia.org/sw_pc/vcdtools.html
and download the vcdtoolkit. ok its old but it was also done by philips, as in 1 of the originaters of the vcd specs. its the most stringent on specs you can get. infact its so particular that vcd from Tmpgenc isnt accepted (because of the headers). using the mux tool included even complains about a lack of last header etc. anyway vcd created by mainconcept and bbmpeg (vcd settings) are accepted perfectly. and guess what, you can even lower the video bitrate. mainconcept only lets you lower it to 1140 but bbmpeg i lowered it to 1000 and both were accepted fine. so if you want to say they are out of spec then you are saying philips doesnt know what its talking about. thats real funny for the people that made the specs to start with. :)

as i said, just because some software and people say it MUST be 1150 does not make it so.

[Kika]

I wrote Audio + Video! An i wrote kbps, not Kbps
Video is 1150
Audio is 224
1150+224=1374

You see, all is OK. ;)

[Wilbert]

vcd uses a maximum of 1150 in the original specs. that means lower values are still in spec though you may not like the quality. yes i know just about every program now days says 1150 only but that doesnt make it right.
I didn't know that, but apperently you are correct (here's an other link, although I can't find references in it):

http://www.vcdimager.org/pub/vcdimager/manuals/0.7/vcdimager.html#SEC8

Regarding audio and VCD2.0:
"Joint stereo, stereo or dual channel audio streams at 128, 192, 224 or 384 kbit/sec bit-rate."

[Kika]

The Video CD specification requires the multiplex-ed MPEG-1 stream to have a CBR of less than 174300 bytes (1394400 bits) per second(10) in order to accommodate single speed CD-ROM drives. The specification allows for the following two resolutions

[Wilbert]

Yeah. I actually meant references of the line you quoted. That document contains no references at all. At least, I couldn't find them ...

[int 21h]

My mistake, in the Whitebook presented to the ISO standards council by JVC, Philips, SONY and Matsushita, bitrates up to 1150 for video are permissible. (As already noted by other replies, my other comments stand :rolleyes: )

[Kika]

Single Speed is defined as 75 Sectors/s. Each Sector on a (S)VCD contains 2324 Bytes of User-Data.

75x2324*8/1000 = 1394 kbps
On (S)VCDs, there's a Muxing-Overhead of around 20 kbps.

1394-20=1374.
And that's exactly the Max. Videobitrate of 1150 kbps + the Audio-Bitrate of 224 kbps.

[dvd_maniac]

So...why go through the entire process of encoding to divx...worrying about audio synch problems...and the 4 hour long or longer process it takes when I can just capture with the mpg VCD and be done?
One main reason? compatibility. Episodes of 1 hour or less fit onto one cd-r and can be played on almost any dvd set top player. I find it difficult to enjoy watching video on a monitor of even 21" when I have a nice big screen TV. movies however do not fit on one cd unless you are using kvcd which is not AS compatible but still better than Divx. So the choice is quality over compatibility. Which one is more important to you?
ps: I have ati aiw 9700 pro and record tv eps in vcd and movies either into dvd for dvd-r or kdvd.

[dragongodz]

last comments from me.

just to be clear, i wasnt trying to have a go at anyone or anything its just i have seen so many people say video bitrate had to be 1150 and even some commercial programs(example. mydvd) only let you use it aswell. sorry but i just felt the need to correct this all to commen mistake.

oh and about the audio bitrate, yes you can use other than 224 but only using vcd 2.0 and segmented streams. so its best to just use 224 really.

i must say aswell that vcd can be acceptible if you understand that the quality is not going to be the best. as an example i have done some of my sons movies on to vcd (1 cd since they are generally only around 70 odd minutes long) and the quality is perfectly fine for him. also if he wrecks the cd its not expensive to replace. :)

[ppera2]

Back to original question: there is error in - DivX is Mpeg4.
It should be something like: Why use Mpeg4 instead Mpeg1 or 2?

After this correction, I think that no motivation explanation is required...

[int 21h]

I think it would be more like why use Mpeg-1 instead of Mpeg-2 or Mpeg-4...

Comparing Mpeg-1 and Mpeg-2 is like comparing a Dodge Neon to a Mazda RX8, or a Pentium 1 to a Pentium 4. They can do the same sort of things, but the sucessor is so much more advanced than its predecessor any feature based comparisons are useless. Which leaves the conclusion, as already stated in this thread, Mpeg-1 is used for application specific reasons. (i.e. play in DVD player, cheap to replace, etc.)

[SeeMoreDigital]

I think we've all forgotten that although Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 has improved in leaps and bounds in recent years. Mpeg1 has also improved!

Yes we all know that Mpeg4 in the form of DivX and XviD has enabled us all to squeeze 60, 90, 120 or even more mins of A/V onto a shiney CD-R.

However, it is now possible to do this with Mpeg1. And I for one have been very surprised with the results. As even I have managed to create Mpeg1 704x576 encodes, to look every bit as good as say DivX - And I'm one of DivX's biggest fans!

So, if you decide to create some Mpeg1 encodes using the methods described on the kvcd.net website you'll quickly realize that Mpeg1 is not going away without a fight!

Cheers

[Kika]

Why using MPEG1 instead of MPEG2? You can do the same things with MPEG2 - with a better Quality!

But you'r right. In the Beginning of DVD-Transcoding, the old Encoders wheren't that good than now.
In MPEG4, you can gat the same Quality than in MPEG2 with a smaler File-Size, that's a fact. But in MPEG2, you can use given Standards while MPEG4 still is in "Testing-Status".

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Kika
Why using MPEG1 instead of MPEG2? You can do the same things with MPEG2 - with a better Quality! MPEG1 is still used a great deal in the business world, because 'every PC' can play it! Even today many of my commercial customers don't have DVD drives in their network PC's and as a result, won't have any Mpeg2 codecs installed either!

Mpeg1 files will always play because it's written into the Windows and MAC operating systems. And, it will be with us for quite a while yet because it's so easy to incorporate Mpeg1 video into 'MacroMedia/flash' type CD's!

And there's nothing wrong with the quality of Mpeg1 either. It's a sad fact that many people shun Mpeg1 because they've only ever seen it on VCD. With it's 352x240/288 pixels.

However, it is possible to encode Mpeg1 using DVD resolutions of 720x480/576. And if you carry out your own short encode tests (from a good source) using bitrates of around 4000-5000kbps. You can't honestly tell that you're not watching an Mpeg2/DVD!

Mpeg1 is easier to edit too!

But, at the end of the day, it's what you want to do with your AV format that counts!

If you've taken 60/90mins of home movie footage using your DV camera, which format should you use to save/distribute your memories........ Well, many people choose Mpeg1/VCD because they like the cost of the medium. And now, using new Mpeg1 encoding techniques, it's possible to like the images too!

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by Kika
Why using MPEG1 instead of MPEG2? You can do the same things with MPEG2 - with a better Quality!



Not quite true. Mpeg2 uses _exactly_ the same method to compress as mpeg1, it just has got some extra functionality like interlacing support.

[Kika]

Mpeg2 uses _exactly_ the same method to compress as mpeg1

Sorry, but that's a myth. MPEG2 can use Non-Linear Quantizer Scale, 9 or 10 Bit DC component Precision and other things, MPEG1 can't.

[int 21h]

This thread is going nowhere :(

Use the format that provides the featureset you need for your specific situation, then ????, and finally PROFIT!!!

[kwag]

Originally posted by Kika
Sorry, but that's a myth. MPEG2 can use Non-Linear Quantizer Scale, 9 or 10 Bit DC component Precision and other things, MPEG1 can't.
Well, I guess I have to give my little "drop of water" here :D
Kika is correct, in the sense that MPEG-2 has a higher DC precision component. BUT that is for "scaling", and not usefull at all on low bitrates. MPEG-2 above ~5,000Kpbs using a DC precision of 10 bits, really starts to shine, and leave MPEG-1 behind. However, on low bitrates, where you MUST use 8 bits in MPEG-2, because if you don't the quality will actually be worse, MPEG-1 is more stable and looks better, because it has less protocol overhead than MPEG-2. But then again, do we really need to go beyond ~5,000Kbps with MPEG-1, even at 720x480? No. Not at all. As a matter of fact, MPEG-1 at ~5,000Kbps/720x480 looks so damn good, that I don't need to use MPEG-2!
And as "SeeMoreDigital" said, MPEG-1 is easier to work with.
Only if you need interlaced video, then you must use MPEG-2. But for progressive sources, I use MPEG-1. And I've yet to see an MPEG-2 quality (from any encoder!) better that MPEG-1 at low bitrates. And I mean below ~2,500Kbps. Above that, as I said before, MPEG-2 scales very well, and better than MPEG-1.

-kwag

[Kika]

@kwag

Sorry, but i can't agree. MPEG2 has newer and better techniques for Encoding, even at low Bitrates. But, and that's the problem, at Standard-Settings, it is far away from beeing optimal.
Using TMPGEnc at low bitrates for MPEG2 is the best choice. No other encoder is even near it's quality. With the right settings, you can beat DivX with MPEG2. That's a thing, you can't do in MPEG1. The reason is, like i wrote, one of the Features of MPEG2, MPEG1 didn't provide: Non-Linear Quantizer Scale (and the right range of Bitrate in CQ-Mode with a lowered B-Picture spoilage).
Using this, you don't have Problems like DivX and MPEG1 have: Color Blocks and Stuff like that.

An other reason to use MPEG2 instead of MPEG1 is compatibility. I've found a lot of Players with Problems playing MPEG1 with Non-Standard Resolutions/Bitrates. OK, some can be tricked by using the Header-Trick, but if you plan to put the Videos onto DVD R sometimes, you lost...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Kika
Originally posted by kwag
... But for progressive sources, I use MPEG-1. And I've yet to see an MPEG-2 quality (from any encoder!) better that MPEG-1 at low bitrates. And I mean below ~2,500Kbps. Above that, as I said before, MPEG-2 scales very well, and better than MPEG-1. I totally agree with kwag.

To think that it's now possible to create Mpeg1 704x480/576 encodes at bitrate speeds between 1000kpbs - 2500kbps that look as good as they do, is a testament to kwag's outstanding work in this field. I've been working with Mpeg1 for around 10 years now and it's never looked so good!

Also, Mpeg2 users have not been forgotten. As kwag's profiles offer performance improvements here too!

Cheers

Don't knock it. Untill you try it!

[Kika]

@SeeMoreDigital

To prevent misunderstandings: I never said, kwags templates are bad. On the contrary: I know them and they are very good. No matter what i said about MPEG1 vs. MPEG2. But, you can do the same using MPEG2 - and more.

And don't underestimate the compatibility-problematic. None of my two Players is able to playback 704(720)x576/480 in MPEG1 (player 1 does not show any Pic, Player 2 is stuttering). One of them isn't able to playback any kind of M-, K- or AVCD correctly. But both of them are playing non-standard MPEG2-Videos - even at the same Bitrate-range then KVCDs.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hi Kika

I would be interested to know which players you are having problems with.

Admittedly there are quite a few early 'stand alone' players that can't spin the files (RAW Mpeg1 or 2 for that matter). But most of the newer players can.

However, all prospective purchasers of 'stand alone' players should make sure that their proposed player can spin VCD's (Mpeg1/DAT)!

Cheers

[Kika]

Player 1 is a Denon DVD3000, an old one, but very good for playing DVDs. Plays also XVCDs with original Resolution, but higher Bitrates (max 2x). Only bitrates below 1xSpeed do result in stuttering Videos (from CD, no Problem from DVD).

Player 2 is a Afreey LD2060. Plays nearly everything, but stutters on higher MPEG1-Resolutions than Half-D1 (OK, the Header-Trick works).

Like i wrote: Both of them are playing MPEG2 perfectly. Only the Afreey don't like 3/4-D1.

Oh, and there ARE newer Players with problems while playing M/KVCDs. In our german boards, we have a lot of Questions like "Player XY does not like MVCD?". "Video and Audio are not in sync on M/KVCD" and so on. (mainly Mustec, Yamakawa and Philips or Sony players)

[SeeMoreDigital]

After carrying out my own tests, some months ago I have found most stand alone players prefer, simple image pixel frame sizes. Such as: -

480x480/576
704x480/576

I have found that 528x480/576 does work but can crash some 'stand alones'!

And, as stated before it's not worth encoding above 2500kbps.

Personnaly. I have a 'Mpeg1 test CD-R' that I carry around with me in the car, to try out on customers/clients DVD players. The disc comprises of 8no 377 second encodes (over 50mins worth). The first 4no are in PAL at 352x288, 480x576, 528x576 & 704x576. The second 4no are in NTSC at 352x240, 480x480, 528x480 & 704x480. All the encodes have been generated at just 1150kbps c/w VCD compliant audio.

When I use my disc in some of the UK's 'box shift' stores. The sales staff are always surprised that 'VCD' images can look this good. Most if not all have asked / ripped copies for their own use!

Cheers

[kwag]

Hi Kika,

I always like to provide "proof of concept".
If you can provide an MPEG-2 (low bitrate) that looks better than it's MPEG-1 counterpart, then I'll agree ;)

These are some of our test models:
www.kvcd.net/704x480-showoff.mpg
www.kvcd.net/small-adaptive-sampler.mpg
www.kvcd.net/red-planed-action-704x480.mpg
www.kvcd.net/red-planet-704x480.mpg
www.kvcd.net/red-planet-extreme-704x480.mpg

These are all MPEG-1, and their MPEG-2 couterpart, believe me, never stand a chance at that average bitrate (subjectively or objectively).
I know MPEG-2 specs (almost like the palm of my hand!), but so far, there's not a single MPEG-2 encode that has looked as good as MPEG-1 on very low average bitrates. I believe we've already made this a proven fact, on many encodes/screenshots, etc., at KVCD.net.
Theoretically, MPEG-2 is better than MPEG-1. Practically, not so. At least for the time being!

-kwag

[SeeMoreDigital]

Agreed!

[Kika]

OK, kwag, this sounds like a good challenge.
Hey, i missed things like that the last Months. ;)

My special Field is Anime-Encoding. So i will try to use my own methodes on "real" Videos.
As i wrote before, your Templates are damn good, no doubts about that. Have to do hard work to beat them.

Hm, any Idea which source we can use? Must be the same for both of us. An other problem is your Filtering-Skript, it suits MPEG1 very well, but not MPEG2.

My proposal: DVD-Source, no Filtering, only our special settings for TMPGEnc. What do you think?

Kika

[kwag]

Hi Kika,

This is not "template" related. It's the matrix what makes the difference.
Even with CCE, the results are very good.
Look here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=60276&highlight=kvcd
As for a challenge, well, I've been through that already :)
The best challenge, if that's what you want, is to match one of those samples I just posted, with it's MPEG-2 counterpart.
Please remember that those samples were created with KVCD's "Notch" matrix, plus our Motion Adaptive script.
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3483
( But I already made their MPEG-2 couterpart encodes a long time ago, and I know the results ;) )

-kwag

[SeeMoreDigital]

If I remember correctly, there is a company in Israel that's working on low bitrate Mpeg2. I have a couple of their movie trailers on my PC. One is at around 1300kbps and the other 2100kbps.

I have to admit they're quite good. But not as good as KVCD Mpeg1.

I'll try and dig out some more info tomorrow

Cheers

[Kika]

@kwag

I know your Motion Adaptive Script and i realy like it. Guess it has to be changed only a little to suit MPEG2 very well. However, we are on a discussion about MPEG1 vs. MPEG2, right?

This is not "template" related.

Yes, right. To use the Template-Term was the easiest way for me to write about it. I know a lot about MPEG, but english... :rolleyes: ;)
Too bad, that my english is that terrible, it's a real handycap for me here in Doom9.

I've done a lot of testings with MPEG1 and MPEG2 and i did never find a way to beat MPEG2 by using MPEG1. OK, in my early Days, i used MPEG1 too, because it gave me a more clear and sharp image. Later, i learned a lot about DCT and Matrices. At ths Point, i changed my mind.

If you like, i can post a small sample next week. The Source was VHS, and it's a part of a 96 Minutes Video in 352x288 anamorphic MPEG2 an a 80 Minutes CD-R. Maybe this shows, waht MPEG2 can do.

To make it clear: I'm not saying anything against your KVCD, i'm only talking about MPEG2 and the advantages of this Encoding-Methode.

[kwag]

Originally posted by Kika
If you like, i can post a small sample next week. The Source was VHS, and it's a part of a 96 Minutes Video in 352x288 anamorphic MPEG2 an a 80 Minutes CD-R. Maybe this shows, waht MPEG2 can do.


We're not talking about "Features" here. Of course I'm aware that MPEG-2 has more than MPEG-1. But the topic is about "Final better quality". If I need an interlaced video, then I have no option, and I must use MPEG-2. But if I'm encoding a Film DVD, I'll go for 23.976fps MPEG-1 any time over MPEG-2 ( for low bitrates, of course )
So as long as we are comparing apples to apples, that is, progressive target, then I'm all for it :)
But don't come up with an interlaced MPEG-2, because then we can't compare it to an MPEG-1 encode.
Remember that most KVCD users are backing up DVDs, and they are "Film". So 99% of the targets are progressive.
And then again, 352x288 is a very poor resolution to see all the flaws. Better yet, make it 704x480, and then you'll see what I mean for "unstable MPEG-2 video" on low bitrates!

-kwag

[ppera2]

Interlace at 352x288 video?????

[Kika]

Interlace at 352x288 video?????

No, and i never wrote about interlaced Video here...

And then again, 352x288 is a very poor resolution to see all the flaws.

... ever tried this Resolution with anamorphic encoding? Guess not...

Better yet, make it 704x480, and then you'll see what I mean for "unstable MPEG-2 video" on low bitrates!

*lol*
I don't need this high resolution to beat THIS kind of Video-Quality.
What's the benefit of using high Resolution with a Matrix which lowers the true/effectiv Resolution down to nearly the half?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Boy is this one going to run and run!

Kika,

Please perform this test. Using you favourite Mpeg encoding software (mines UleadMSPro7 bye the way but I suppose TMPGEnc will do just as well) why don't you rip a chapter from a DVD and encode it in both Mpeg1 and Mpeg2 at 2500kbps VBR, with frame sizes of 352x240/288 and 720x480/576. Then encode the same source again in both Mpeg1 and Mpeg2 at 4000kbps VBR, with frame sizes of 352x240/288 and 720x480/576

When you've finished you should have 8no encodes

Play them back at 'full screen' using MediaPlayerClassic (v6.4.6.0) and tell us which encodes look better.... in your opinion.

If everything goes by the book your 4000kbps Mpeg1 and Mpeg2 encodes should look the same. However at 2500kbps the Mpeg1 encodes will look quite a bit better than Mpeg2 encodes.

And this is without using kwag's profiles!

But I am very happy to say that when using kwags profiles I/we are now able to cram 80mins+ of Mpeg1 A/V at 704x576 onto a CD-R instead of 40mins. And if we reduce the pixel image size to 352x288 we can now get well over 160mins instead of the usual 80mins onto a CD-R!

If you think you can create a way of doing the same with Mpeg2, then please do it. As in my opinion it would be an extaordinary feat to generate, watchable Mpeg2 images below 1100kbps

Cheers. And good luck my friend!

[Kika]

Play them back at 'full screen' using MediaPlayerClassic (v6.4.6.0) and tell us which encodes look better....

Oh my goodness, you are using a Softwareplayer to compare Videos?
Did you never notice that Softwareplayers ALWAYS are producing a more unsharp Picture while Playback on MPEG2?
The only way to compare is a Stand-alone or a direct extracted Frame but never a Softwareplayer.

If you think you can create a way of doing the same with Mpeg2, then please do it.

Episode 1 on one CD, HdR in SVCD-Resolution on 2 Discs - both without any Blocking, both without any special Filtering. Think, that's enough. ;)

[kwag]

Hi Kika,

... ever tried this Resolution with anamorphic encoding? Guess not...
It's still 352x288, so no contest against higher resolutions.
Ever tried 352x288 in a high definition TV to see how bad it looks? Guess not... ;)

*lol*
I don't need this high resolution to beat THIS kind of Video-Quality.
What's the benefit of using high Resolution with a Matrix which lowers the true/effectiv Resolution down to nearly the half? [/B]
A matrix that lowers the true effective resolution? Where in the world did you hear that?
The KVCD "Notch" matrix was designed to reduce visible DCT blocks on the low frequency spectrum, by reducing the quantization on that area. It has nothing to do with resolution!

-kwag

[Kika]

It has nothing to do with resolution!

It has a lot to do with effective(!) Resolutions. That's how Quantisation with such Matrices works. It cut's of Frequencies. And what are the frequencies stand for? They are a kind of "fill in" for the Details of a Block. Cutting of some Frequencies will automaticaly drop some Details to. And a loss on Details is a lowering of the effective Resolution. Simple, isn't it?

It's still 352x288, so no contest against higher resolutions.

Not in sharpness, true. But sharpness isn't the only thing about quality. And i wrote about that as an Example. Don't forget: The Source was 16:9 VHS. It's effective Resolution "transformed" to MPEG (PAL) is 352x576. Using 352x288 anamorphic isn't much lower than 352x576 letterboxed. So you can get better Results on this slightly lower Resolution at very low Bitrates (slightly lower sharpness, but without any blocking).

Ever tried 352x288 in a high definition TV

Hey, i'm in Germany. We do have a lot of Hightech, but unfortunatly no HD-TV. :( ;)

OK, back to the Discussion. Resolutions are not the Point here. It's still MPEG1 vs. MPEG2 vs. DivX.

So let me ask a question to the DivX-Users: Why do you use DivX instead of MPEG1 or MPEG2?

kwag and i may have our different meanings about which one is better (MPEG1 or 2), but i guess we both do think, we are able to produce Videos with the same, in some cases better, Quality than in DivX.

Kika