This is a moderated forum. Please refrain from personal attacks, troll baiting and
off-color language.
Posts for wanted "warez" or "cracks" will be deleted within 48 hours. Please look elsewhere.
Unsolicited posts advertising "warez" or "crack" sites and information will be deleted.
Keep your comments to a technical gendre. Be gentle .. we were all "newbies" once.
These suggestions reflect the wishes of the majority of this forum's users. FAQ / SEARCH
I'm having great time learning to encode little video clip.
Just to be sure, if a do a mini(dv)720*480 at 2500, or a xsvcd 720*480 at 2500, there is no difference in quality? The video files are the same, but there is no menu to chose from in xscvd and other extra?
I think you mean miniDVD, not mini(dv). There is no difference in quality between what you described. Menus are better in miniDVD, but these discs are less likely to play in standalone DVD players than XSVCD.
Just one little caveat to add re: the quality. I have found through my experiences that 352x480 often have a better " quality " than say 720x480 or 704x480 when making mini-dvd or xsvcd. About the only thing I can pin it on is that there just aren't enough bits @ 2500 to fill a 720x480 frame properly, and there is a lot of "interpretation" done by whichever encoding method you are using to fill in the blanks. Try capping at 352 and 720 with an old ATI AIW and a slow CPU to see what I mean. The 352 cap will work, the 720 will drop a zillion frames. Just something to try out. Even my standalone DVD recorder drops the res. to 352x480 if you are doing a cap of over 2.5hrs.