Quantcast Wondering Why Divx and Xvid are Not Allowed Here? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
03-01-2005, 06:37 AM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
I am wondering why divx and xvid topics are not allowed in the forums. I have seen a few people asking about them and I know i could have helped. These happen to be my preferred sources for encoding to kvcd. I would actually prefer to rip to xvid instead of vob, Then encode kvcd from that source. The reason is that the file is much smaller, and is also now non-interlaced (meaning now that inverse telecine can be used). So, you can end up with a smaller file size and better quality than you can with vob. tmpgenc can handle divx and xvid as souces with no help fron any other program or script as long as vfapi priorities are set correctly.
directshow=3
avi2(open dml)file reader=1
avi vfw compatibility reader=0
cri soldec mpeg decoder=0
microsoft mpeg1 decoder=0
wav file reader=0
bmp/ppm/tga/jpg file reader=-2
dvd2avi project file reader=-2
tmpgenc project file reader=-2

With these settings, I have thrown everything at tmpgenc 2.521 and 2.524 and have found nothing it will not encode to kvcd.
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  
03-01-2005, 06:47 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuquehair
These happen to be my preferred sources for encoding to kvcd. I would actually prefer to rip to xvid instead of vob, Then encode kvcd from that source.
And the result is crappy as hell, so (when you are a newby) you think KVCD is crappy as hell, then you go ouside and tell everywhere "KVCD is bullshit" and that is exactly why all discussions about them are banned.

That the same for not using any scripts. The goal here is to obtain the best quality for human eyes, not just a piece of plastic that can be read by the standalone.

Note: for the complete explanation from Karl, read there :
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14941
Reply With Quote
  #3  
03-01-2005, 10:41 AM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
This is absolutely false, dialhot. I have excellent results with these sources. I would love to compare my encodes with yours to see if you could possibly get any better encodes than mine. I highly doubt that there is any possibility of getting any better results than what I have found and achieved with this way of encoding. Plz let me know if there is any way we could swap a sample with each other and you will see the incredidbly brilliant MASTERPIECES that have been encoded in this fashion. You can IM me if you wish and i would be able to send you a 5 minute sample or something to that effect.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
03-01-2005, 10:47 AM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
btw I do post the above statement with the utmost respect to you, dialhot, and to kwag and all the other moderators and administrators. I just want to point out that I have found a fantastic way of doing these encodes and believe that the subject should not be banned anymore, since this is the case.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
03-01-2005, 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
Hi phuquehair,

The problem is as follows:

DVD -> KVCD = Good results.
DVD -> KDVD = Excelent results.

DVD -> DivX(XviD) -> KVCD/KDVD is NOT a good result

Because DivX has already been compressed from a source, and then re-compressed once again to KVCD, you loose quality.
Just like if you were to copy a DVD to a VHS tape, and then copy that VHS to another VHS tape. Same thing happens with "DVD to DivX to Anything else".

So many people used to come to this site saying that they wanted to convert their downloaded DivX movies, and others came here saying that KVCD looks crap because that's all the see on the net, and that happened just because many people converted DivX to KVCD and then put them on file sharing programs. The result: Very bad quality! and bad reputation for us
And that's why we no longer discuss DivX conversions
When we talk about AVI, we're actually talking about lossless compressors, like HuffYUV, etc. Not about MPEG-4, which is a very poor choice for captures when you want to encode to MPEG-1 or MPEG-2.
I agree that DivX will look very good if encoded properly from a high quality source. But then, it's a very poor choice for standalones, because there are no chapters, and is not feature rich as what can be done with DVD specifications.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #6  
03-01-2005, 11:10 AM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
Also, as far as using no script: tmpgenc has no need for any script. All the tools are there, in the program itself, for perfect encodes. People always overlook the video arrange method when encoding. This is the only tool needed for sizing. If the source is a full screen video, all you do is set to full screen. However, if the source is widescreen, you must set to center (cutom size) and set your width to 352 and then set your height to the correct size for each movie differently. you can use the preview option and will see the movie just how it looks on a tv screen (smaller of course). Most common heights are 144, 148, 153, 175, 183, and 188. This is of course if your resolution setting is set to 352x240. Many people confuse video arrange method with resolution. they are separate things entirely. this is so much simpler than adding borders. You can open your source in wmp, with the corporate skin, and size the screen to fit the preview window exactly. then compare the 2 videos for height and width. That way you can be assured that the end result of your encode will be the exact same size as the source. This is only one of the aspects of using no script and only using tmpgenc. There are many more, of course, such as cq values, color correction, inverse telecine, audio quality, and what codecs you have installed and whether or not they are conflicting with each other.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
03-01-2005, 11:10 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuquehair
This is absolutely false, dialhot. I have excellent results with these sources.
For sure. As told in Karl post, you can if your Xvids are particulary good (that means that you are doing for instance 2GB xvids from a 8GB DVD, then converts this 2GB Xvid into a 800 MB KVCD).
But that is not the common situation and the banishment of Divx topics has be done according to the majority that is usage of a 700 MB Divx downloaded from the net.

Quote:
I would love to compare my encodes with yours to see if you could possibly get any better encodes than mine.
I definitely get !
FYI 80% of my KVCD are from good Xvids so I can tell you that they can't reach the quality of the ones I'm doing from my DVDs.

Quote:
I highly doubt that there is any possibility of getting any better results than what I have found and achieved with this way of encoding. Plz let me know if there is any way we could swap a sample with each other and you will see the incredidbly brilliant MASTERPIECES that have been encoded in this fashion. You can IM me if you wish and i would be able to send you a 5 minute sample or something to that effect.
Man I do not doubt about the quality you think you obtain. But do not have doubts about what my 15 years long skilled eyes in MPEG2 encoding can distinguish.

Even if we share samples, you will find your as good as mine where I will find a lot of problems in yours. It's a matter of habit and level of training in the eye. You are a carpenter if I'm not wrong ? So let imagine that I tell you "I have the best warehouse in my garden, I did it myself". For sure if you come to my house, you'll be crazy about how awfull the warehouse is

Quote:
Originally Posted by phuquehair
Also, as far as using no script: tmpgenc has no need for any script. All the tools are there, in the program itself, for perfect encodes. People always overlook the video arrange method when encoding. This is the only tool needed for sizing.
Do you think peoples here would have spent so much time finding an optimal script if the result is the same without it ?

But as long as your encoding please your eyes, that's enought.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
03-01-2005, 11:26 AM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
well put, dialhot. And kwag, I see your point in not having chapters and also about crappy rips. I have seen a few crappy dvdrips and would never use them as sources. I am a newbie compared to both of you of course, but I have gone beyond what i have seen from other supposed experienced kvcd encoders. I have seen results from no-one that compare to mine yet in quality. I have been to places where they have been doing kvcd for years and I learned some things from them but had to delve more on my own to find the fixes to the problems that they either could not find the answer to or they simply overlook. I do not, however, know how to add chapters to my encodes yet. This would be a benefit I am sure. For now I am content to being able to watch great looking and sounding backups on my standalone dvd player that are not stretched out of shape and have brilliant color.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
03-01-2005, 12:58 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuquehair
For now I am content to being able to watch great looking and sounding backups on my standalone dvd player that are not stretched out of shape and have brilliant color.
There is no fun if we reach the perfection at the first attempt. It's far funnier progress and learn step by step. I can swear you that the awesome KVCDs I did 2 years ago are... awfull according to my current taste .
Reply With Quote
  #10  
03-01-2005, 01:09 PM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
yep, i believe you. I am already re-encoding movies i had done without inverse telecine that could have been much better quality. I also just figured out how to do chapters, I think, with vcdeasy. I just got the software and am trying it out for the first time. My guess is that it is done as part of the burning process and not as a saved file. I just made a first attempt to add them and after a minute or so it said it could not do it cuz i didn't have a disc in the machine. mebbe reading the directions would help. Or, as usual, only as a last resort. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #11  
03-01-2005, 01:13 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuquehair
I think, with vcdeasy. I just got the software and am trying it out for the first time. My guess is that it is done as part of the burning process and not as a saved file.
More precisely chapters are part of the "authoring" phase. It comes between encoding and burning.

Vcdeasy takes what you have encoded, create a image disc including the chapters you asked it to add, and this image can be burn on a disc (vcdeasy can do that also or you can use nero).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
03-01-2005, 06:04 PM
phuquehair phuquehair is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to phuquehair Send a message via Yahoo to phuquehair
This seems like a super duper vcdgear with great extras. Me likes
Reply With Quote
  #13  
03-02-2005, 05:22 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuquehair
The reason is that the file is much smaller, and is also now non-interlaced (meaning now that inverse telecine can be used).
Uh oh. I hope you don't think that converting an interlaced source to MPEG4 does some magical trick to remove the combing?

Besides, 99% of DVDs are progressive. The 1% consists mainly of TV series and live/concert footage. If DVD2AVI/DGIndex tells you it's interlaced, there's a big chance it isn't.

You should do an inverse telecine if the original progressive material cannot be achieved by enabling Force FILM in DVD2AVI/DGIndex and when the material has the specific 3:2 pattern. Force FILM works in most cases anyhow.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Xvid/Divx com AC3 para DVD pmcorreia Conversão e Codificação de Vídeo (Português) 15 10-06-2004 04:34 PM
DIVX/XVID to KDVD FOR DUMMIES ? g8o4lyf Video Encoding and Conversion 5 04-29-2004 06:28 PM
Codecs: Divx 5.1.1 vs Xvid Divx 5 support tacylm Video Encoding and Conversion 1 04-21-2004 03:00 PM
Ripping DVD to DivX or Xvid? gidxg03 Video Encoding and Conversion 7 03-06-2004 10:52 PM
DivX-Xvid vs Captura DigoBrow Conversão e Codificação de Vídeo (Português) 3 10-24-2003 11:23 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd