Hi Kwag,

I understand the reasoning behind why you switched modes to CQ_VBR in your new templates of July 8, 2002.

But, can you explain how to interpret the quality setting in the CQ_VBR mode as opposed to the CQ mode, cause the numbers are quite different.

I mean, the setting in the 352x480 template is at 20, is that low ??

Thanks

Hi MoovyGuy:

Of course it deserves an explanation

With the CQ mode and the "default" Q matrix of TMPEG, the quality value works completely different compared to CQ_VBR with the KVCD Q matrix.
Here's what I've found, after many (many! ) trial tests and encodes.
For the 352x240 template, beyond a quality setting of around 50, there is not much visual quality increase. And I mean if you slide the quality setting from 50 to 100, there's almost no quality increase or file size increase. It's maxed at around 56. So I used the treshold point, so that people can work between that value and lower values to optimize for a file size if needed.
For the 352x480 and the 704x480, the same principle applies, but at different quality values.
On the 352x480, the quality and file size is maxed at around 24.
On the 704x480, it's around 17-18.

So there you have it. Play with the values. I have burned all three samples and viewed them on my Samsung HDTV. The picture quality is by far above any of the other templates. On the 704x480, I have to say, it looks almost like the original DVD

Let the fun continue!
kwag

Hey Kwag,

I do appreciate all of your efforts and info. Although I don't have an HDTV, per se, I do have a TV Room / Home theatre that uses an XGA projector for a display.

So my current max resolution is 1024x768 which is still far better than the best regular TV, so needless to say, like you, I'm picky about the quality.

To top it all off, my little internal evil upgrade gene has kicked in again and is going to make me replace the projector with one of those new fancy UXGA projectors that does 1400x1024(1200), drool ......

So again, like you, visual quality is of the utmost importance. .....

Thanks again

Oh man, 1400x1024(1200), I'm drooling
What size do you project your movies?
I guess my 32" HDTV would look like a "Spirograph" or an "Etch-A-Sketch" besides that

kwag

Kwag,

Is the intent of your new Beta templates simply to increase broad compatability for various DVD player models, or is there a definite increase in quality to be gained as well? Should people who have not had any compatability issues still move to these templates to get better quality?

BTW, I have a Sony 400Q LCD projector (can't recall the resolution), projected onto a 7-foot-wide screen, and such a setup will magnify the flaws of ANY video source. The fact that your templates create a enjoyably watchable image that rivals some DVD's is a testament to your work.

Thanks for all your efforts, great job!

Not at all, an HDTV is still producing a fantastic hi-res image that is nothing to sneeze at..


I project out to an 8 foot wide image. I don't use a screen, but instead I've painted the receiving wall with a nice semi-gloss that reflects quite nicely.

As Scav said, showing the encodes this way does indeed amplify any flaws, so all of this template work and testing is of great value to those like us....

This is why for SCI-FI or heavy action movies I use the KDVD templates, and now with these new templates, I can encode chick flics and other comedy type movies using KVCD, keep the quality & save space .....

Very kool .....

Thanks Scav!
To answer your question, there is a HUUUUUUGE difference in quality with the new templates, compared to the old ones.

kwag