CD Video or DVD? at DVinfo.net

Ian OBrien · November 16th, 2004, 10:55 AM

Can anyone define the difference between dvd and cd video
as I am not sure where to find the answer!
The odd ocassion I have asked a member of staff at a local
retail outlet any particular question, they always seem vague
about a reply. It was a computer retail outlet I was talking about
by the way

Jeff Donald · November 16th, 2004, 11:10 AM

DVD is mpeg 2 and is very high quality, certainly comparable, if not better than DV. VCD is mpeg 1 and has about the quality of VHS, maybe a little lower. VCD is burned to regular CD's.

Ian OBrien · November 16th, 2004, 11:30 AM

Thankyou for your reply Jeff
I am reasonably new to Dv and I am finding it incredibly
interesting and mind blowing at the same time!!

Jesse Bekas · November 16th, 2004, 12:04 PM

DVD MPEG2 could be better than DV25? How is that?

Norm Couture · November 16th, 2004, 01:06 PM

Jesse is right. DVD is compressed MPEG2 format and retains high quality, but DV signal is still the best. DVD MPEG2 format is burnt onto a 4.7Gb disc and is read at a much higher bit rate than VCD which is highly compressed (MPEG1), can be burnt onto a standard 700Mb CD, and read at a slower bit rate.
SVCD is a mid-term solution that can be burnt on a 700Mb CD, but not recognized by many DVD players.

A regular CD burner can make a VCD or a SVCD, but you need a DVD burner to make an real MPEG2 DVD compatible with most home DVD players.

Jeff Donald · November 16th, 2004, 01:30 PM

DVD's that are encoded from higher end formats and encoded on high end hardware (rather than software) look better than material acquired on DV.

Jesse Bekas · November 16th, 2004, 09:39 PM

Well, 35mm film correctly transfered to almost any format will subjectively look better than DV25, but that doesn't make DVD MPEG2, even at a high bitrate, a superior format.

Peter TK Lee · November 16th, 2004, 10:07 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ian OBrien : Can anyone define the difference between dvd and cd video
as I am not sure where to find the answer!
The odd ocassion I have asked a member of staff at a local
retail outlet any particular question, they always seem vague
about a reply. It was a computer retail outlet I was talking about
by the way -->>>

Ian,

For more of an indepth explanation, have a look at the following url:

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/pages..._mpeg2_dvd.htm

Also, we can see in terms of bit rate, DVD format cannot be higher in quality than DV as the max compression rate for DVD is 10.5 Mbps and for DV, it is 25Mbps.

cheers,
Peter

Kyle Ringin · November 16th, 2004, 11:48 PM

One thing to remember is that mpeg can be encoded in multi pass and can encode more efficiently, saving space then using more bps when required. Mpeg also references previous and future frames so it doesn't encode the entire frame most of the time.
DV must compress each frame on it's own and as such such uses more bps.

Whether it is better or not? well it depends what you call better. For editing mpeg isn't as good, but for final delivery you are never going to get anything better than the DV original and encoding from one lossy codec (DV) to another (mpeg2) you will always lose quality.
I say 'better' (for me) is being able to take a small disc and play it on my dvd player rather than take out my camera and shuttle tapes endlessly for the sake of a small quality penalty.

A final delivery codec's (like DVD mpeg2) job is to throw away as much data as possible without it being visible. It does a good job (if the encoder is any good) but will never be as good as the camera original of any format.

If both compressed from the same uncompressed source, mpeg2 video would be comparable to DV at much lower bitrates due to it's more elaborate compression (referencing other frames).

In response to the actual question:
Here in Australia I have never seen a DVD player (maybe the very early ones) that can't play VCD and SVCD. I used SVCD before I got a dvd burner and it was ok - I got lip-synch problems on certain players and in frames with a bit of motion the picture broke up into macro blocks pretty easily (even with high bitrates).

I would never use it now because DVD-r disks are so cheap and S/VCD doesn't support AC3 (dolby digital) audio, anamorphic widescreen and other technical niceties. I've never used VCD because, although as Jeff mentioned, it is similar to VHS quality (in static scenes), in high motion areas it breaks up easily into macro blocks. Also the run time of a S/VCD is fairly short and you need to use multiple disks for a feature length movie (~2 for VCD, ~3 for SVCD).

Peter TK Lee · November 17th, 2004, 12:14 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Kyle Ringin : One thing to remember is that mpeg can be encoded in multi pass and can encode more efficiently, saving space then using more bps when required. Mpeg also references previous and future frames so it doesn't encode the entire frame most of the time.
DV must compress each frame on it's own and as such such uses more bps.

This thread is starting to deviate but unless I'm mistaken, I still can't see how DVD's maximum bitrate of 10.5 Mbps could be comparable to DV's 25Mbps. The max 10.5 Mbps is applied to a frame and according to that article I previously referenced, all frames are compressed (or are the B frames the frames you're referring to when you say most frames are not encoded).

Anyway, at the end of the day, all is subjective :)

cheers,
Peter

Kyle Ringin · November 17th, 2004, 04:48 AM

What I meant was that because mpeg2's 10.5Mbps (for example) is not used to encode a full frame (except i frames) the bits can be used 'more wisely' to encode changes rather than information that has been already encoded in the last frame.

I agree this is getting fairly off track. And probably academic. I agree even more that it is all really subjective too. I have a MX500 and an HDTV and I don't think the difference between the camera original and a DVD is much to make a noise about. If your video is interesting enough, no one will notice the compression artifacts...

Rob Lohman · November 17th, 2004, 06:28 AM

Peter: you can't just compare bitrates like that, DV is much closer
to MJPEG than to MPEG for comparison.

Think of it in terms of cars. If I have a 200 bhp engine in my car
that tells me nothing. Now if this cars weighs 500 kg (1100 pounds)
you know you'll have a rocket. But if the car weighs 1500 kg
(3300 pounds) it will be far far slower.

Compression is a complex business where bitrates are only
relevant for:

- comparison in quality with the same codec (MPEG2 and MPEG2)
- comparison in quality with codecs of similar algorithms (ie, DIVX/MPEG4)
- comparison in final file size versus. quality

Although MPEG and DV use a similar base frame encoding
techniques there are much more differences and this yields very
different bitrates. As Kyle also tried to explain one of the major
differences is that MPEG is a frame-difference based encoder
which DV is not. So it already has less data to start with.

Ian OBrien · November 18th, 2004, 03:26 PM

I have actually burned to dvd a party I originally did for someone
on cd video, and was astounded with the diference! I will avoid
cd video after visually comparin the two, I am not well up on
GB data like you guys, but I appreciate your replies

many thanks

Moe Belli · November 22nd, 2004, 03:06 PM

By CD video you mean VCD and SVCD formats (both can be used to record video on standard CD-ROM discs). VCD can be played back on any DVD set top player but unfortunately not all DVD set top players can playback SVCD.

VCD uses MPEG-1, SVCD uses MPEG-2 at higher resulution to obtain a better picture (but you can't fit as much on a SVCD CD-ROM disc of course).

DVD, we all know, uses MPEG-2 at a higher datarates and resolution and needs to be burned on DVD-R/+R discs.

Comparing not MPEG-2 but a DVD disc to DV, DV is better technically as you wind up recompressing your DV stream to MPEG-2 in order to deliver it on DVD. However, a high quality MPEG encoder like Canopus Procoder and using AC3 audio to squeeze the highest video bitrates possible, gives quality comparable to DV. Maybe on a bench it shouldn't, but via viewing tests, believe me, the difference is negligible (however, DV is your "negative" by going DVD you've gone to a lossy format and if you re-edit DVD VOB files, you're compressing once again).

Video CD (VCD and SVCD) ares quite handy during post. If you need to provide a producer with a quick content check of your work and quality is not an issue -- VCD is fine -- all players will play it, in fact VCD might be more compatible then DVD-R (I'll often provide clients with a VCD backup in case they can't play the DVD-R on their set tops. So VCD's are great, they play on any machine, are very cheap and quick to burn.

SVCD by the way, is actually really good. To appreciate the format download DVD2SVCD and try it. I've converted some of my DVD productions to SVCD versions with this tool and the quality is just below DVD (buy a DVD player that is known to play SVCD or you'll be out of luck).

November 16th, 2004, 10:55 AM	#1
Ian OBrien Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Manchester England Posts: 27	CD Video or DVD? Can anyone define the difference between dvd and cd video as I am not sure where to find the answer! The odd ocassion I have asked a member of staff at a local retail outlet any particular question, they always seem vague about a reply. It was a computer retail outlet I was talking about by the way __________________ Ian

November 16th, 2004, 11:10 AM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	DVD is mpeg 2 and is very high quality, certainly comparable, if not better than DV. VCD is mpeg 1 and has about the quality of VHS, maybe a little lower. VCD is burned to regular CD's. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 16th, 2004, 11:30 AM	#3
Ian OBrien Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Manchester England Posts: 27	Thankyou for your reply Jeff I am reasonably new to Dv and I am finding it incredibly interesting and mind blowing at the same time!! __________________ Ian

November 16th, 2004, 01:06 PM	#5
Norm Couture Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Quebec, QC, Canada Posts: 123	Jesse is right. DVD is compressed MPEG2 format and retains high quality, but DV signal is still the best. DVD MPEG2 format is burnt onto a 4.7Gb disc and is read at a much higher bit rate than VCD which is highly compressed (MPEG1), can be burnt onto a standard 700Mb CD, and read at a slower bit rate. SVCD is a mid-term solution that can be burnt on a 700Mb CD, but not recognized by many DVD players. A regular CD burner can make a VCD or a SVCD, but you need a DVD burner to make an real MPEG2 DVD compatible with most home DVD players. __________________ Norm :)

November 16th, 2004, 01:30 PM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	DVD's that are encoded from higher end formats and encoded on high end hardware (rather than software) look better than material acquired on DV. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 16th, 2004, 12:04 PM	#4
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	DVD MPEG2 could be better than DV25? How is that?

November 16th, 2004, 09:39 PM	#7
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	Well, 35mm film correctly transfered to almost any format will subjectively look better than DV25, but that doesn't make DVD MPEG2, even at a high bitrate, a superior format.

November 16th, 2004, 10:07 PM	#8
Peter TK Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 39	Re: CD Video or DVD? <<<-- Originally posted by Ian OBrien : Can anyone define the difference between dvd and cd video as I am not sure where to find the answer! The odd ocassion I have asked a member of staff at a local retail outlet any particular question, they always seem vague about a reply. It was a computer retail outlet I was talking about by the way -->>> Ian, For more of an indepth explanation, have a look at the following url: http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/pages..._mpeg2_dvd.htm Also, we can see in terms of bit rate, DVD format cannot be higher in quality than DV as the max compression rate for DVD is 10.5 Mbps and for DV, it is 25Mbps. cheers, Peter

November 16th, 2004, 11:48 PM	#9
Kyle Ringin Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 241	One thing to remember is that mpeg can be encoded in multi pass and can encode more efficiently, saving space then using more bps when required. Mpeg also references previous and future frames so it doesn't encode the entire frame most of the time. DV must compress each frame on it's own and as such such uses more bps. Whether it is better or not? well it depends what you call better. For editing mpeg isn't as good, but for final delivery you are never going to get anything better than the DV original and encoding from one lossy codec (DV) to another (mpeg2) you will always lose quality. I say 'better' (for me) is being able to take a small disc and play it on my dvd player rather than take out my camera and shuttle tapes endlessly for the sake of a small quality penalty. A final delivery codec's (like DVD mpeg2) job is to throw away as much data as possible without it being visible. It does a good job (if the encoder is any good) but will never be as good as the camera original of any format. If both compressed from the same uncompressed source, mpeg2 video would be comparable to DV at much lower bitrates due to it's more elaborate compression (referencing other frames). In response to the actual question: Here in Australia I have never seen a DVD player (maybe the very early ones) that can't play VCD and SVCD. I used SVCD before I got a dvd burner and it was ok - I got lip-synch problems on certain players and in frames with a bit of motion the picture broke up into macro blocks pretty easily (even with high bitrates). I would never use it now because DVD-r disks are so cheap and S/VCD doesn't support AC3 (dolby digital) audio, anamorphic widescreen and other technical niceties. I've never used VCD because, although as Jeff mentioned, it is similar to VHS quality (in static scenes), in high motion areas it breaks up easily into macro blocks. Also the run time of a S/VCD is fairly short and you need to use multiple disks for a feature length movie (~2 for VCD, ~3 for SVCD).

November 17th, 2004, 12:14 AM	#10
Peter TK Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 39	<<<-- Originally posted by Kyle Ringin : One thing to remember is that mpeg can be encoded in multi pass and can encode more efficiently, saving space then using more bps when required. Mpeg also references previous and future frames so it doesn't encode the entire frame most of the time. DV must compress each frame on it's own and as such such uses more bps. This thread is starting to deviate but unless I'm mistaken, I still can't see how DVD's maximum bitrate of 10.5 Mbps could be comparable to DV's 25Mbps. The max 10.5 Mbps is applied to a frame and according to that article I previously referenced, all frames are compressed (or are the B frames the frames you're referring to when you say most frames are not encoded). Anyway, at the end of the day, all is subjective :) cheers, Peter

November 17th, 2004, 04:48 AM	#11
Kyle Ringin Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 241	What I meant was that because mpeg2's 10.5Mbps (for example) is not used to encode a full frame (except i frames) the bits can be used 'more wisely' to encode changes rather than information that has been already encoded in the last frame. I agree this is getting fairly off track. And probably academic. I agree even more that it is all really subjective too. I have a MX500 and an HDTV and I don't think the difference between the camera original and a DVD is much to make a noise about. If your video is interesting enough, no one will notice the compression artifacts...

November 17th, 2004, 06:28 AM	#12
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Peter: you can't just compare bitrates like that, DV is much closer to MJPEG than to MPEG for comparison. Think of it in terms of cars. If I have a 200 bhp engine in my car that tells me nothing. Now if this cars weighs 500 kg (1100 pounds) you know you'll have a rocket. But if the car weighs 1500 kg (3300 pounds) it will be far far slower. Compression is a complex business where bitrates are only relevant for: - comparison in quality with the same codec (MPEG2 and MPEG2) - comparison in quality with codecs of similar algorithms (ie, DIVX/MPEG4) - comparison in final file size versus. quality Although MPEG and DV use a similar base frame encoding techniques there are much more differences and this yields very different bitrates. As Kyle also tried to explain one of the major differences is that MPEG is a frame-difference based encoder which DV is not. So it already has less data to start with. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 18th, 2004, 03:26 PM	#13
Ian OBrien Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Manchester England Posts: 27	I have actually burned to dvd a party I originally did for someone on cd video, and was astounded with the diference! I will avoid cd video after visually comparin the two, I am not well up on GB data like you guys, but I appreciate your replies many thanks __________________ Ian

November 22nd, 2004, 03:06 PM	#14
Moe Belli New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 22	CD Video or DVD? By CD video you mean VCD and SVCD formats (both can be used to record video on standard CD-ROM discs). VCD can be played back on any DVD set top player but unfortunately not all DVD set top players can playback SVCD. VCD uses MPEG-1, SVCD uses MPEG-2 at higher resulution to obtain a better picture (but you can't fit as much on a SVCD CD-ROM disc of course). DVD, we all know, uses MPEG-2 at a higher datarates and resolution and needs to be burned on DVD-R/+R discs. Comparing not MPEG-2 but a DVD disc to DV, DV is better technically as you wind up recompressing your DV stream to MPEG-2 in order to deliver it on DVD. However, a high quality MPEG encoder like Canopus Procoder and using AC3 audio to squeeze the highest video bitrates possible, gives quality comparable to DV. Maybe on a bench it shouldn't, but via viewing tests, believe me, the difference is negligible (however, DV is your "negative" by going DVD you've gone to a lossy format and if you re-edit DVD VOB files, you're compressing once again). Video CD (VCD and SVCD) ares quite handy during post. If you need to provide a producer with a quick content check of your work and quality is not an issue -- VCD is fine -- all players will play it, in fact VCD might be more compatible then DVD-R (I'll often provide clients with a VCD backup in case they can't play the DVD-R on their set tops. So VCD's are great, they play on any machine, are very cheap and quick to burn. SVCD by the way, is actually really good. To appreciate the format download DVD2SVCD and try it. I've converted some of my DVD productions to SVCD versions with this tool and the quality is just below DVD (buy a DVD player that is known to play SVCD or you'll be out of luck).