Quantcast KVCD Using CCE? Update! - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
06-26-2002, 12:37 AM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
For those that have been wanting to use CCE with the Kwag templates, here is what I've found thus far. Contradictions gladly accepted:

There is a 'patch' out there that will allow you to use alternate matricies in CCE 2.50 (2.62+ support alternate matricies by default). So no problem using the Andreas/Kwag KVCD matrix.

I can see no way to alter the GOP structure to what Kwag has defined in his TMPGEnc template! Kwag uses a very long set of frames per GOP, and I see no way to force this in CCE. I believe this is where much of the compression in Kwag's template comes from, so not being able to do this is a _real_ downer. If anyone can find a way, that would be excellent.

I haven't done any quality comparisons, because I don't know how not changing the GOP structure would affect the results. CCE is FAST, though. Amazingly fast. What normally takes 7-9hours in TMPGEnc takes ~2hours in CCE. For this reason alone it would be great to find a way to munge the GOP structure, in order to maintain the wonderful kwag kvcd compression. This is with the same AVISynth file (so it is doing the same resizing/temporal smoothing in both cases).

Also, I'm unsure how to match up with the CQ setting used in TMPGEnc. CCE uses a Quantization factor, and an image quality priority value. How to set these to match a CQ of 50 or 70 in TMPGEnc is currently beyond me, as I haven't yet delved deep enough.

My main interest in CCE is purely for the speed. Doing a full movie in 4.5hours vs. 18 hours.... wow. But for me size is more of a priority - I still want 120min on one CDR! If anyone has any tricks that allow CCE to work more Kwag-like, let's hear em! Will update if I find new info.
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  
06-26-2002, 03:34 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daagar
For those that have been wanting to use CCE with the Kwag templates, here is what I've found thus far. Contradictions gladly accepted:

There is a 'patch' out there that will allow you to use alternate matricies in CCE 2.50 (2.62+ support alternate matricies by default). So no problem using the Andreas/Kwag KVCD matrix.

I can see no way to alter the GOP structure to what Kwag has defined in his TMPGEnc template! Kwag uses a very long set of frames per GOP, and I see no way to force this in CCE. I believe this is where much of the compression in Kwag's template comes from, so not being able to do this is a _real_ downer. If anyone can find a way, that would be excellent.

I haven't done any quality comparisons, because I don't know how not changing the GOP structure would affect the results. CCE is FAST, though. Amazingly fast. What normally takes 7-9hours in TMPGEnc takes ~2hours in CCE. For this reason alone it would be great to find a way to munge the GOP structure, in order to maintain the wonderful kwag kvcd compression. This is with the same AVISynth file (so it is doing the same resizing/temporal smoothing in both cases).

Also, I'm unsure how to match up with the CQ setting used in TMPGEnc. CCE uses a Quantization factor, and an image quality priority value. How to set these to match a CQ of 50 or 70 in TMPGEnc is currently beyond me, as I haven't yet delved deep enough.

My main interest in CCE is purely for the speed. Doing a full movie in 4.5hours vs. 18 hours.... wow. But for me size is more of a priority - I still want 120min on one CDR! If anyone has any tricks that allow CCE to work more Kwag-like, let's hear em! Will update if I find new info.
Hi Daagar !

Can u compare file sizes of CCE ORDINAL or improved settings
and KWAG's template ?
Did u made any tests of quality vs file size with CCE & TMPGenc ?

If so' please share with us !
THX
bman
Reply With Quote
  #3  
06-26-2002, 09:08 AM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No, I haven't done any filesize comparisons yet. When I hit the block of not being able to match Kwag's GOP structure, I assumed I would never achieve the great results that we see in TMPGEnc as far as filesize with similar quality. I will take a look at the current CCE guides and see what they do to get decent compression, and combine it with the Andreas/Kwag Q. Matrix and see what happens. My guess is that it will be possible to get ~100min per CD, which sadly falls pretty short.

I'm simply guessing here, but I assume that without being able to match Kwag's GOP structure, to achieve similar filesizes the result of CCE would be of lesser quality, defeating the whole point. I'm hoping to find information that proves otherwise, but I'm not going to count on it.

*NOTE: Of course I could change CCE to use multipass VBR where I could pre-calculate the filesize ahead of time and guarantee a full movie on a single CD. I believe enough others have done tests to prove this is not even close to the quality of Kwag's template, since the magic behind Kwags quality is the use of CQ. See vcdhelp.com for long-winded discussions on this topic.

Kwag: Is there any decent GOP structure that would work within the confines of CCE's restrictions?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
06-26-2002, 09:45 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have to agree with u !
KWAG made tremendous service for me !!!!!!
KWAG'S Templates change totally my interest in video conversions from SVCD 480x576(480) to 720x576(480) .
With this great stuff I can manage now even 2hr 19min movie as HARRY POTTER 1 on 1CD-R90 with very decent quality.
I'm Just curious coz so many ppl glorify CCE !!!!!!
I've never worked with CCE and just for curiosity want give a try .
I beleve KWAG will find way to combaine LONG GOP and Andreas
matrix with speed and quality of CCE (if there is any)


bman
Reply With Quote
  #5  
06-26-2002, 02:19 PM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, after further study, all I've managed to do is completely confuse myself. I'll list what I've learned, and hopefully someone can correct me in the areas that I'm spouting garbage.

The general story is this: For a given filesize, CCE proponents say that doing a x-pass VBR run will _always_ give better results than anything that can be done in TMPGEnc. This means that we should be able to shove a 120min movie onto a single CDR with CCE/mpeg2, just as we do now with Kwag's template and TMPGEnc. Based on the discussions I found about x-pass VBR and CQ mode, I can see why this should be true.

The part that confuses me, is that _if_ that is actually true, then why did we need Kwag in the first place? If it is so easy to shove 120min on a CD with good quality, people should have been able to do it all along! Obviously, I'm missing some vital link because I don't think Kwag has wasted his time.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
06-26-2002, 02:47 PM
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 bman
I have to agree with u !
KWAG made tremendous service for me !!!!!!
KWAG'S Templates change totally my interest in video conversions from SVCD 480x576(480) to 720x576(480) .
With this great stuff I can manage now even 2hr 19min movie as HARRY POTTER 1 on 1CD-R90 with very decent quality.
I'm Just curious coz so many ppl glorify CCE !!!!!!
I've never worked with CCE and just for curiosity want give a try .
I beleve KWAG will find way to combaine LONG GOP and Andreas
matrix with speed and quality of CCE (if there is any)


bman
Hi bman:

The problem with CCE is that the quality for MPEG-1 encoding is very poor compared to TMPEG. I know that CCE is very good at MPEG-2, and beyond 5000Kbps, there's hardly any difference in quality from TMPEG and CCE. But CCE is WAY faster than TMPEG in encoding speed. The other problem with CCE is that I can't use long GOP structures. So the final file size is way too big if you encode with CCE. I've tried every CCE option, and I choose TMPEG over it any time. My main interest has been MPEG-1, for portability reasons, and that's why I discarded CCE for use with KVCD templates. Hopefully TMPEG's encoding speed will increase with time in newer versions.

kwag
Reply With Quote
  #7  
06-26-2002, 04:46 PM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
And this was my fatal flaw. The Kwag templates are highly optimized for VCD, and only VCD. The Kwag templates weren't designed to be superior to SVCD nor does Kwag ever say they are! They were designed to be superior to _regular_ VCD, by fitting more video in less space with higher quality. For people that can't/don't want to use CCE, or can't/don't want to use SVCD in their standalone players, the Kwag templates are perfect.

Summary:
1. Decide if you want to use VCD or SVCD. Base this on standards compatability, personal preference, whatever.

2. If you choose VCD, for whatever reason, Kwag's templates are all you need. You get highly optimized quality, beyond general VCDs and approaching SVCD quality.

3. If you choose SVCD, for whatever reason, there is a whole other world of confusion and learning out there! Some of the lessons from Kwag will help (his tweaking of things like GOP structures and Q. Matricies), but SVCD is a totally different beast. Trying to adapt his VCD templates for SVCDs, while partially doable, is in vain!

Hope this helps others!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
06-26-2002, 08:12 PM
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 Daagar
And this was my fatal flaw. The Kwag templates are highly optimized for VCD, and only VCD. The Kwag templates weren't designed to be superior to SVCD nor does Kwag ever say they are! They were designed to be superior to _regular_ VCD, by fitting more video in less space with higher quality. For people that can't/don't want to use CCE, or can't/don't want to use SVCD in their standalone players, the Kwag templates are perfect.

Summary:
1. Decide if you want to use VCD or SVCD. Base this on standards compatability, personal preference, whatever.

2. If you choose VCD, for whatever reason, Kwag's templates are all you need. You get highly optimized quality, beyond general VCDs and approaching SVCD quality.

3. If you choose SVCD, for whatever reason, there is a whole other world of confusion and learning out there! Some of the lessons from Kwag will help (his tweaking of things like GOP structures and Q. Matricies), but SVCD is a totally different beast. Trying to adapt his VCD templates for SVCDs, while partially doable, is in vain!

Hope this helps others!
Don't try to adapt a KVCD template for SVCD use.
Try the KDVD Half D1 352x480 MPEG-2 template. Change the audio to 44.1Khz and burn as SVCD. The results might surprise you

kwag
Reply With Quote
  #9  
06-26-2002, 10:08 PM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Will do
Reply With Quote
  #10  
06-27-2002, 05:34 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi all!
At last had opportunity to try THE C-C-E !!!
What can I sey : All I heard about is T-R-U-E !!!
Better than I thought,much better (for my personal oppinion)
To make job harder I tryed to go up from original clip at 2.35:1 to 16:9 and in CCE the same clip looks better , much better - Picture is so smooth ... No microblocks no color changes ...
Encoded clip of 3.25min with CCE standart params and 600/2300 bitrate 1-pass as MPEG2 -22380kb
The same clip with KVCD 22244kb .
KWCD compresses better but THE QUALITY ......?!!!
I know I compare 2 diff things MPEG1(TMPGenc) vs MPEG2(CCE) .
So hard to get decision ....
U can choose as u like but I preffer to stick to KVCD with any configurations coz more familiar for me
I hope, as KWAG seys, with the time enc-speed will rise and become close to CCE .
bman
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KVCD: Ripping guide update? skywalker Video Encoding and Conversion 14 01-22-2008 04:47 AM
KVCD Templates Update! kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 0 01-13-2003 01:23 AM
KVCD Templates update! kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 0 12-23-2002 01:07 AM
KVCD: How about a update overview? m0rdant Off-topic Lounge 0 12-10-2002 08:59 AM
KVCD template update kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 5 05-29-2002 08:05 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd