digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)
-   -   Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/4291-kvcd-interlaced-source.html)

FredThompson 07-02-2003 12:53 AM

Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD?
 
Given interlaced source, what advantage does KVCDX3 have over KDVD? The resolution is oddball and both support MPEG-2. Did it start as an experiment to try to increase detail?

Secondly, why use SKVCD NTSCFilm instead of KDVD? Is SKVCD, essentially, the same as KDVD but at film fps with the pulldown header trick for NTSC hardware playback?

(Question isn't about MPEG1 which I think is useless for high-motion source. Unless it's film or quite old, I prefer NOT to deinterlace because it can create problems and takes longer to pre-process.)

kwag 07-02-2003 01:14 AM

Re: Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FredThompson
Given interlaced source, what advantage does KVCDX3 have over KDVD? The resolution is oddball and both support MPEG-2. Did it start as an experiment to try to increase detail?

720x480 is 345600 pixels. 528x480 is 253440. Far less pixels to encode, and barely any quality difference viewed on a regular TV ( 720x480 is just a little better on a HDTV ).
So we can get a higher CQ value to encode. It's really the best compromise between quality/resolution. You can always encode KVCDx3 as MPEG-2 interlaced, and burn it as SVCD, if your player supports it.
Quote:


Secondly, why use SKVCD NTSCFilm instead of KDVD? Is SKVCD, essentially, the same as KDVD but at film fps with the pulldown header trick for NTSC hardware playback?
They are basically the same :!:, but SKVCD was done as a substitute for SVCDs. You can really get far more time on a CD at 352x480, and also 352x480 is Half D-1, which is a standard DVD resolution. 480x480 is not. So people that want to move their encodes to DVD in the future, they only need to re-encode audio if it was done a 44.1Khz. Also the bitrates on SKVCD are set way lower that KDVD values.
Quote:


(Question isn't about MPEG1 which I think is useless for high-motion source. Unless it's film or quite old, I prefer NOT to deinterlace because it can create problems and takes longer to pre-process.)
True, but most of us usually encode just that, Film :).

-kwag

nicksteel 07-02-2003 10:24 AM

Re: Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:

Originally Posted by FredThompson
Given interlaced source, what advantage does KVCDX3 have over KDVD? The resolution is oddball and both support MPEG-2. Did it start as an experiment to try to increase detail?

720x480 is 345600 pixels. 528x480 is 253440. Far less pixels to encode, and barely any quality difference viewed on a regular TV ( 720x480 is just a little better on a HDTV ).
So we can get a higher CQ value to encode. It's really the best compromise between quality/resolution. You can always encode KVCDx3 as MPEG-2 interlaced, and burn it as SVCD, if your player supports it.
Quote:


Secondly, why use SKVCD NTSCFilm instead of KDVD? Is SKVCD, essentially, the same as KDVD but at film fps with the pulldown header trick for NTSC hardware playback?
They are basically the same :!:, but SKVCD was done as a substitute for SVCDs. You can really get far more time on a CD at 352x480, and also 352x480 is Half D-1, which is a standard DVD resolution. 480x480 is not. So people that want to move their encodes to DVD in the future, they only need to re-encode audio if it was done a 44.1Khz. Also the bitrates on SKVCD are set way lower that KDVD values.
Quote:


(Question isn't about MPEG1 which I think is useless for high-motion source. Unless it's film or quite old, I prefer NOT to deinterlace because it can create problems and takes longer to pre-process.)
True, but most of us usually encode just that, Film :).

-kwag

When I use TMPGEnc Author, it will not accept 352x480 for 16:9, so is Half D1 confined to 4:3 for standard DVD resolution?

kwag 07-02-2003 11:08 AM

Re: Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nicksteel

When I use TMPGEnc Author, it will not accept 352x480 for 16:9, so is Half D1 confined to 4:3 for standard DVD resolution?

Yes it is. Half D-1 can only be 4:3. Full D-1 can be 4:3 or 16:9.
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html

-kwag

nicksteel 07-02-2003 03:28 PM

Re: Why use KVCD for interlaced source instead of KDVD?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:

Originally Posted by nicksteel

When I use TMPGEnc Author, it will not accept 352x480 for 16:9, so is Half D1 confined to 4:3 for standard DVD resolution?

Yes it is. Half D-1 can only be 4:3. Full D-1 can be 4:3 or 16:9.
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html

-kwag

Thanks. 16:9 KDVD 352x480 half D-1 output muxed as DVD with BBMPEG and burned as SVCD does play well on both my APEX and Cyberhome machines. In fact, it appears to be a very compatible format.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2022 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2022 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.