[quote="r6d2"]@Kwag,
Quote:
What do you mean by "Image" :?: Quote:
Still a no no :?: I use 112Kbps almost exclusively, leaving more bitrate for video Quote:
TMPGEnc shouldn't be set to "0" :!: At least that's not the default in my PLUS version :!: Quote:
-kwag |
If you don't want to use 'dual channel', please use at least 'stereo' instead of 'joint stereo'. The current MP2 encoders are not very good at joint stereo, you'll get glitches and distortion in the audio track very easily.
|
@Kwag,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@Boulder, So I guess that joint stereo is a No no No :!: :lol: Thank you guys, I am encoding right now Friends Season 1, 3 episodes per CD with KVCDx3, with all this suggestions of yours. I did some LBR tests but I was dissapointed. My encodes were by far worse than Kwag's KVCD test disc with the Seinfeld scene. I was aiming at that... 6 episodes per CD, but I guess I did was not able to tweak it right. Regards, |
Quote:
Thanks in advance :) |
Hi GetUp,
Motion Estimation produces better quality and less artifacts. At least on all the latest tests I've done with the current script and AviSynth 2.52. You can clearly see less artifacts around moving objects, and even though the CQ is slightly lower than with "High quality", the results are better :) -kwag |
Quote:
|
[quote="r6d2"]
Quote:
You don't need to do tracks/chapter. Use ChapterXtractor to read your .IFO, and Cut&Paste the information into VCDEasy. It will create chapter entry points on your single MPEG file. -kwag |
Then that leaves us just with selectable subs and multiple audio tracks, which we rather not use anyway in KVCD :?:
|
Quote:
There are very few players that can handle selectable subs on SVCDs. So that only leaves selectable audio channels on a SVCD as an option :mrgreen: -kwag |
But you can still encode as a KVCD and after that mux as SVCD with 2 audio tracks! :wink:
|
[quote="kwag"]
Quote:
|
Quote:
is it the same for scripts without the dynamic filtering? |
Quote:
-kwag |
Well, I did a small test and it looks like the motion estimate search produces better quality despite the fact that CQ has to be reduced slightly. I don't use the adaptive filtering because of the damn permanent subtitles in the TV broadcasts here :evil:
|
Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
|
I've tested a lot and here I've a link to compare the CQ and CQ_VBR at a resolution of 352x(240)288 PAL.
TEST: CQ vs. CQ_VBR If the results aren't good for you download the pics and use the zoom function and you will see CQ is better in every resolution. |
Who ever did those tests, probably didn't consider many factors.
We've already proved here that CQ_VBR is better than CQ for resolutions of 352x240(288). That is, when comparing both CQ and CQ_VBR targets to be the same size. Those screeen shots don't mention the process, and there is not enough data. In this threads, we did provide all the data and procedures ;) -kwag |
I don't know clearly what you say, but I've tested a lot of resolutions with CQ and CQ_VBR and in my results you can see the difference. First I've tested a resolution of 480x576, but the artefacts in this Video with CQ_VBR were very high.
And then I've tested VCD resolution. And I don't know why but you can see that there are more blocks with CQ_VBR because this mode has too little weak in high action scenes. Can't you that the pics on the left side are very shaper than the right? |
Quote:
Quote:
That's clearly stated in this thread, that above 352x240(288), CQ is better than CQ_VBR. Quote:
Again, read this thread from top to bottom, and you'll see the FACTS :!: -kwag |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.