My suggestions for a good SVCD encode

[telemike]

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)


:D

[Trahald]

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]

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]

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]

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.