KDVD via MainConcept ?
 

Just curious but is there is a KDVD template for MainConcept Encoder (standalone). The new version seems to run twice as fast as TMPG. It seems to have all the needed settings too.

Anyone know ? No big deal if not, but it is a fave software of mine, alongside TMPG and CCE.

Search the forum for MCE. You'll find a lot of opinions, most not too good.

-kwag

YEP! Twice as fast as TmpgEnc IN 2PASS MODE!! ;-)

But TmpgEnc does have a very bigger range in CQ values = an accurate prediction is possible and by this you can use 1pass VBR, means CQ mode encoding.

And that will be still faster than 2pass using MCE.

You need this:
Copy de following lines and put it in a text file. Save it with de name: KVCD DVD 720x576 VBR.mef
and put it in: C:\Documents and Settings\[user name]\Application Data\MCMPEGEnc

After this you may find your kvcd template in MCE pulldown menú in main window.

Take a look here http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....ht=mainconcept

And note that the template is for 720*576 only because under this... hum... you will see by yourself.

Polemic again?

Jon Read make just a question, I give him just an answer.
It is 720*576 because he ask about KDVD.
Under this, I sure you, at, for example, 480*576, I can obtain 800 MB 90' MPG2 KSVCD in 1 CD, excelent quality, from xvid/divx source.
In MPG1 more of this.
El Juli put Damian trilogy in 1 DVD 4.7 GB.
Try it, you know my little guide and yesterday I had post a "Sintonía Fina" method. Compare MCE with TMPGEnc full encode to fit one movie in one CD. Select any other trilogy and put it in one DVD.
(@Inc: Only 1 pass)
Don't compare isolates frames.
Only tell me if you'll try it? I will be waiting your answer.

Where do you see a polemic ? I gave MY advice on this encoder. Telling that *I* find this encoder not good under 720*576 is making polemic according to you ? I call that debating.

A polemic whould have been : "this encoder is a crap and everyone using it should buy a new pair of eyes". But I didn't say that. No ?

Did I say something that make you feel I disagree with the answer you gave ?

I must admit that I didn't notice that when I posted my message. But what *I* think about ME is still the same, even if it wasn't a correct time to tell that.

A 90' movie on a 90' disc you really consider that as a good result ? With tmpgenc I do 1h45 movie in 480*576 on a CD80, and for 1h30 I use 544*576, still on a CD80.
I didn't wanted to start a polemic but, excuse me, you just give the rod to be beaten with.

And I'm sure about the opposite. What do we do now ? Start to fight ? Or let people see by themselves ?
I'm sure you will choose the second solution. And this is *exactly* what I said in myt first post, no ? "You will see by yourself..."


1/ Do you think really I give *MY* opinion about something whithout testing it ?

but also :

2/ I will try with your particular template and a new version of ME because tests I did are quite old now.

As you can read, I actually type the answer above before reading that you requested for that. So you can see that we are in the same mood.

My apologies Dialhot, I did not want to offend you.
"Polemic again" was just a joke.
Sorry, sometimes english is to hard for me. I just mean 700 MB 80' CD.
Well, you are one expert and me no. Maybe you can find the better of MCE. I would wish that anybody compares MCE and TMPGEnc with full encodes.
I NEVER WAS THINK NOR WILL THINK THAT OF YOU.
I think the better of you, not only like techician, but like person. Sometimes a little bad-tempered, but it is possible excuse that. (this is a joke too)

Then put a smiley :-)
I was not offended but surprised. Surprised to feel that I can't give an advice on something I dislike.

Okay. That is still not really good but it's better :-)

Why do you insist on the "whole movie" things ?
If on a 2 minute sample tmpgenc gives smaller file and better result, I can't see how ME would beat it on the whole movie.

The same when you say : do not compare single images. I'm sorry but how can we compare encoders without doing it on single images ?

For sure the "global impress" that you have when you actually whatch the whole movie is important also (as I told in the ffvfw thread, we are doing video here, not photography) but you can't say a encoder is good if still pictures are bad.

I'll try to explain me.
I say whole movie, because in 2 minutes encodes you can set tmpgenc in cq100, then your result can show that tmpgenc is better or equal than mce. If you have limited space (700 MB) you will be needed to drop down cq until tmpgenc can fit the cd. In MCE it is similar like this, but with some tweaks (i explain it in http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=68303#68303 you can drop down de size making bigger the quality.

I say this for same previous reason. If images are taked from 700 MB CD fullfilled I think they can be compared without problem.

out of topic: just for kid!
:rotf:

i read the last 3 posts 3 times.
the first time had great impact and i start to laugh.
the second time is for remember cos i laugh too much and forgot from what part i was laugh!
the last time was to copy some parts:

Phil wrote:
"A polemic whould have been : "this encoder is a crap and everyone using it should buy a new pair of eyes"."
"A 90' movie on a 90' disc you really consider that as a good result ?"
"I didn't wanted to start a polemic but, excuse me, you just give the rod to be beaten with."
"Then put a smiley"
(was fantastic cos seems that means: "you can call me fat but smile" )
"That is still not really good but it's better"
(means: i can live with that)
:hihi:
" we are doing video here, not photography"
.....and some more!

Prodater64 wrote:
"Polemic again" was just a joke."
(you forgot the smile)
" I just mean 700 MB 80' CD."
(means: live with that)
"Sometimes a little bad-tempered,... (this is a joke too)"
(was the best) :hihi:

Phil, you're a joker!
everybody can think that you are "a little bad-tempered"
but i don't think so!
the best is your global vision!
for me you are a joker!

Prodater64, you're a joker too.
.....sometimes scared... but a joker!

and i more than you 2!

:lol: :lol:

ps:

this post is a joke!

:lol:
:rotf: :rotf:

Read again what I wrote :
The size aspect was the first one mentioned. When we compare encoders we compare them for a same filesize :!:

Note: and Jorel, you guessed right, I'm just a :dunce: :-D

@ Jorel: And you are a genius
:D :D :D :D :D :D
(this kind of smile will be right?)

the smiles are perfect!
8)

forget the "genius"...but maybe temper(or geni..l )
:lol:

Well, you know it better than me.
But please, apply the hints that I give in another thread to obtain less filesize with better quality.

Can you tell me exactly which poitn in your manual are the important tweaks to use ? Because you guide is "a little" detailed and I don"t want to miss them :-)
(just tell the number of the paragraphs. I will read them carefully)

You can use the template in this same thread, with these modifications:

I frames = 24 (You know the DVD standard, but it is not problem for playing. If you are not agree, use standard (biger size))
P frames = 3
Auto GP = VCSD
Closed GOP interval = 0
VBR, don't change any values.
Noise Sensitivity = 3 (sometimes 1 = smaller size)
Motion Search Mode = 11 (sometimes 15 = smaller size)
Motion search pixel movement = 2047 2047
User quant matrices = In the template you can see te KVCD matrix.

If you want a more stable Q line, use CQ mode: VBR Max Btr = 6000
Avg Btr = 0 Min Btr = 0

If you give me a 2 minutes source and an avisynth script, I'll give you the mce mpg1 and mpg2 with the best quality for your test.

Don't worry, I have 10 operating digits and a well designed brain, I will do that alone :-) Thanks for the tips. I'll tell you the results of my tests.

Sorry, it would be a privilege to work with you.
:(

Can't wait :!:
Although I'm pretty sure I (we?) already know the answer ;)

-kwag

Our objective is to fight to each other. It is inevitable.
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif<-->http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif
:cid:

Can you, anyway, give me that source, then i could work over same sample that you and make a more realistic comparison.
Thank You.

How do you want me to give you a source ? I use a DVD ripped on my disk ! Do you have a 7 GB storage somewhere where I can post it ? ;-)

I also have an other source that I use for all my scripts comparison (but that I didn't use for this MCE<->Tmpgenc yet) but it's also a Vob that is 700 MB long. I can't send that to anyone.

When you ask for a sample to work with by yourself, you think about an avi. I'm sorry but when I see the results I obtain with a clean DVD source, I won't even try an avi.

Excuse me, I thought you could trim a vob. :oops:

Even 30 second in VOB take several dozens of MB. Try it : use ChopperXP, it is a really good vob trimmer.
The 700 MB vob I use is only 5min12s long !

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

Well, then how can I obtain a sample with tmpgenc with similar or equal size than one obtained with MCE. Should I use trim in the script? to get same number of frames for both tests?

Matrix reborn :?:
8O

In fact I use the command line "Sampler(length=25)"
(25 because I'm in PAL) at the end of a script. This generates a sample of 1 second per minute of the movie. In other word I have a 100 second sample for a 100 minute movie.

I encode this sample and I adapt the CQ of tmpgenc in order to obtain the same size I obtained with MCE (as I don't know how to adjust the file size with it :-) I guess that I just have to change the AVG bitrate to achieve that).

Currently I'm using 450-6000 as bitrate range and 1800 as average in MCE. The equivalent CQ under TMPGENC was 68. Both encoded files were 26.5 MB in the end and that is how I can start to comapre the results.

And for the moment, MCE results are really too bad.

Maybe, but in this way:

First at all was "The Matrix",
Later, came "Reloaded",
and the last one "Revolutions".
Don't loose it yourself, coming soon...
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif<-->http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif
"Matrix Reborn"

Just try CQ3, like I said before.

One of the forms is changing the avg btr. But MCE have many others, as you can see in the next screenshot (file names are showing settings). They works with VBR or with CQ encodings.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

@Prodater64,

These are the main reasons why we don't use MCE.
(1) In order to work in CQ mode, you must set the MIN bitrate to zero. This renders the encoded mpeg useless on many standalones that don't support MIN bitrates below a pre-determined level.
(2) The resolution of the Q ( 1-31 ) is not granular enough for a correct prediction, again, rendering the accuracy incorrect almost every time.
The steps are to broad. Not like TMPEG, where you have decimal accuracy.
(3) For low bitrates, it's just not good enough of an encoder.

We consider all of these to be design flaws, and they have never addressed them, even after people have asked for the options. It seems MC is a very narrow minded company.

-kwag

Okay, it will be helpfull :-)

Kwag, I know your reasons, I was reading all by this forum.
I'm just working with MCE, investigating it, and I think, I found out many tweaks that not was founded here before. I want to share those with everybody here, You, Dialhot, Inc, Jorel, etc. because you (they) have more knowledges than me and for this reason you (they) can make further tests that I can't.
I know too, that developers need to solve these design flaws, and I think that they are working on.

About your points:
1 - I think (for casual observations, not for testing it specifically) that min btr don't drop so down when you begin with DVD material.
The fact that some standalones don't support these min btrs would make same sense that the fact that many standalones don't like KVCD/KDVD.
(please, I hope that you know what I mean) :)
2 - I'll test it with my tweaks and Incredible's ping-pong prediction method, and later I'll post the results.
3 - Developers needs to solve that.

See you.

Okay,

Unfortunally I have to stop my tests on MCE. I didn't do them for my own use but just because I gave my words to prodater64. But I have way too much to do to make further tests. I even loose the result of my previous ones :-(

What I can say is :

- whatever I did, MCE gives too much gibbs (mosquitos) effects arround edges. There is surely something to do but I didn't find.
- on plain surfaces, MCE is a little better that TMPGENC (less DCT blocks) but, to be honnest, the gain from this point is far below the loss due to the previous one : mce video are really hard to watch.
- according to time : MCE took 820 (13.83 min) seconds to do my sample, TMPEG took 16.5 in setting "hight" and 10 in setting "Motion Estimate" (but in this case, results from MCE are a little bit better)

I used every settings you suggested and targeted a 1.7 GB MPEG2 video (half a DVD). MCE won't be my future encoder :-)

Thanks for your opinion and your work Phil
:)