digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] - KVCD: Low resolution source and KVCDx3?

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)

- Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)

- - KVCD: Low resolution source and KVCDx3? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/2662-kvcd-resolution-source.html)

J-Wo	02-17-2003 10:39 AM

KVCD: Low resolution source and KVCDx3?

Hey guys, I have some DivX files of Farscape episodes I've been trying to encode. The resolution on them is lower than most DVDrips and I find that if I use the KVCDx3 template the encoding time is more than double what a higher resolution source would take. My guess is because I'm going from a lower res (432x320) to a higher one (528x480). Could I save encoding time by changing the KVCDx3 resolution, and if so which ones should I try?

kwag	02-17-2003 11:10 AM

Hi J-Wo,

Go for KVCD 352x480 PLUS template. :wink:

-kwag

J-Wo	02-17-2003 12:21 PM

Thanks Kwag! For some reason it's taking me 3 hrs to encode only a 45 min episode using the KVCD+ template, but it is an improvement of 4 hrs with KVCDx3. I don't know why these Farscape episodes are taking so long to encode...

But here's something else weird. I noticed these DivX files had a bit of noise, especially in dark scenes. So I tested ten different filter combinations on a small 30sec clip, and finally decided on using

Code:

SpaceDust()

TemporalCleaner()

Blockbuster(method="noise", variance=1, seed=1)

I did still notice some blockiness, especially on some of these dark scenes. But when I encoded the whole episode, muxed and burned it, the video plays pristinely on my player! There was no blockiness whatsoever, even in dark scenes. Why is it that a full encode would look better than just a clip?

kwag	02-17-2003 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Wo

Why is it that a full encode would look better than just a clip?

That doesn't make sense at all 8O

-kwag

J-Wo	02-17-2003 06:35 PM

Quote:

That doesn't make sense at all 8O

Oooops, my bad! The reason the full encode looked so "pristine" to me is I watched it in the morning on my sofa. I could see the noise in the dark scenes later this evening when I got dark outside and I stuck my nose up to the TV :D

Comparing 528x480 KVCDx3 to 352x480 KVCD+, there's a slight reduction in noise and the image looks slightly sharper with KVCDx3 (but again, that's if I scrutinize by sticking my nose up to my TV. I shouldn't notice it that much when I sit back on my couch). But the sacrifice I make is encoding time. It only takes ~2hrs using KVCD+ but ~3hrs with KVCDx3. Are there other encoding resolutions worth trying? And is the only difference between these two templates their output resolutions?

kwag	02-17-2003 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Wo

Are there other encoding resolutions worth trying? And is the only difference between these two templates their output resolutions?

Hi J-Wo,

I use KVCDx3 528x480 99% of the times, and if I still want a movie on one CD, and the result at 528x480 is just not good enough, then I go for 352x480 PLUS template. The only difference between KVCDx3 and KVCD 352x480 PLUS is the resolution. All other parameters are exactly the same. Even the MIN and MAX bit rates. If I can't get acceptable quality on one CD at 352x480 looking at my prediction sample, then I go back to KVCDx3 528x480 and target for 2 CDs.

-kwag