Quantcast Why use KVCD for Interlaced Source Instead of KDVD? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
07-02-2003, 12:53 AM
FredThompson FredThompson is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 88
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.)
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
07-02-2003, 01:14 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
07-02-2003, 10:24 AM
nicksteel nicksteel is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 863
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
07-02-2003, 11:08 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
07-02-2003, 03:28 PM
nicksteel nicksteel is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 863
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is my PAL DVD Source Interlaced? Zyphon Video Encoding and Conversion 31 06-11-2005 04:20 PM
KDVD: NTSC-interlaced source vs Force Film? J-Wo Video Encoding and Conversion 5 10-26-2003 12:47 AM
Framerate und Interlaced Source zaks Video Konvertierung und Encodieren (Deutsch) 9 09-05-2003 06:55 AM
KVCD: Interlaced Source, Best Filter to apply? Anonymous Video Encoding and Conversion 3 08-17-2003 12:11 PM
KVCD: If my source is pure NTSC interlaced? Moat Video Encoding and Conversion 0 07-31-2002 10:00 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd