They were both done identical.

-kwag

Ok, now I'm starting to get excited by this . Time for me to try Resident Evil at 704x480... Let's see if it really is the resolution that makes the difference.

We're all hyperventilating at this momemt

Wouldn't this be a great Christmas present?

Right now I'm figuring out a good CQ_VBR for R.E. at 704x480, 1 disc. Then I'll try to get as close to that size as I can with CQ...

Anyone else noticed that sometimes several CQ values (in my case 52-54) produce almost identical file sizes?

Yes! It's a weird unlinear scale. Probably with "null" points throughout the complete curve . Maybe caused by the KVCD Q Matrix

-kwag

So how will using CQ instead of CQ_VBR affect the prediction? Will KVCDP be able to be used the same way or do we have to do manual prediction?

I LOVE this forum!!!

Might make prediction harder. But I like a challenge .

I just found correct sample sizes for both CQ_VBR and CQ, but am having mixed results. While one particular frame is much improved with CQ (with CQ_VBR it is almost entirely made up of macroblocks), generally the CQ version is slightly more blocky. But this is with motion estimation -- I'm currently reencoding at high quality to see if it makes a difference.

I have a feeling that CQ mode has a better bit rate allocation than CQ_VBR. That's why artefacts are less noticeable than with CQ_VBR. That's just my thought

-kwag

@Kwag and SansGrip,

Used 704x480, GOP=1-2-12-1-24, commented Blockbuster noise,
2 CD's with 112kb audio and CQ=85. The movie, Vanilla Sky,
2hr 19 min and the verdict is WOW great Looking at BitRate
Viewer, the average Q = 2.87. I wish there was a corrulation between
picture quality and Q. Fast action scenes has the lowest Gibbs noise
I've seen, even better than KVCDx3 (528x480). This template seemed more
compressable the the PLUS templates. I going to try this same
resolution for 1 CD. I too would like to know what file prediction
formula should be using for this

-black prince

As a side note:

CQ_VBR 6.5 (motion estimation) = 11,910,158
CQ_VBR 6.5 (high quality) = 10,610,730

Edit: Also:

CQ 56 (motion estimation) = 11,796,690
CQ 56 (high quality) = 11,303,978

Haven't done a visual compare of them yet...

I think I'll let the pictures speak for themselves .

So how will using CQ instead of CQ_VBR affect the prediction? Will KVCDP be able to be used the same way or do we have to do manual prediction?

Theoretically you should still be able to use KVCDP. When it says "CQ_VBR", pretend it says "CQ" . You might want to set the start value to 50 instead of 25, though, or it could take a while to get accurate.

I currently started to encode "K-19" at 352x240 LBR just to test the formula on CQ. It should be the same. Let's see how far off is the final target to the predicted size. I'll post result here when it's done. In about 2 hours.

-kwag

Oh boy, they don't speak, they SCREAM CQ CQ CQ ( Just like a ham radio operator ( me included )

Ah, kwag, there you are -- I thought you'd gone missing . What... spending time with the family on Christmas Eve instead of TESTING?

heheh yes it's pretty persuasive. I'm currently testing 528x480, and then will try with different (more sedate) source material.

Of course , I get out of my office 2 minutes, go kiss my wife and check things around the house, then run back to my office for another 2 hours ( She's having a good time with the kids anyway ) I want to see those screenshots too

-kwag

Mine're watching Lilo & Stitch right now. They were allowed to open one present tonight and that's what they chose -- it's a Disney movie so it's giving the new receiver a good workout .

I decided I would test 352x480 again as well, just to make sure I did it correctly last time...