Kelly, while on this subject, I have been wanting to ask - is it possible to produce SVCD under Sonic Foundry's VideoFactory? What, exactly, is SVCD? I only know that I have seen it mentioned and, correct or not, I automatically equate it with the idea of VHS versus S-VHS, i.e., better video quality. (I am absolutely new to video and have a lot to learn!)

I am pretty disenchanted with VCD. Unfortunately that leaves only VHS since the recipients of my first forays into video don't have DVD players in their home. I recently snagged a Mitsubishi HS-HD 1100U High Definition Digital VCR only because it also does true (not "quasi") S-VHS plus the thing went for $500 less than it did a month or so ago plus Mitsubishi had a $100 rebate going. I'm excited to see if it'll accept video on it's FireWire interface. If not, no huge deal - I can still shoot video to it over the S-VHS link.

But I'd still like to know what the deal is with "SVCD"!!!

There's a lot of useful information at VCDHelp. Ignoring the difference in quality, a key issue is that VCD uses MPEG-1 and SVCD uses MPEG-2. This means you'll need an additional encoder. SoFo provide the MainConcept one at $30. This will allow you to produce MPEG-2, but you'll still need an authoring program to create the menus. It's all extra expense, but on the plus side you'll be set up to produce DVDs when the bug bites!

Ian G.

sdgates, i'm afraid i do have to point out one warning to you, which is that if you record in S-VHS then people with standard VHS machines won't be able to play the tapes. Keep that in mind when sending out copies.

VHS really isn't that bad. Take a look at any commercial release on VHS and it's usually quite stunning. As with most other things, the quality of your source material is a huge factor. If you can output firewire to that Mistubishi i think you'll be surprised at how good plain ol' VHS can look.

In addition to SVCD being MPEG-2, it has a couple of other advantages over VCD. The resolution is 480x480 instead of 352x240 so there is increase in resolution and clarity. The standard bitrate for SVCD is also about twice as high as for VCD so you'll get a sharper image with fewer artifacts. There are also a couple of disadvantages too: you only get about half as much time on a disc, and many many fewer DVD players are able to play SVCDs.

When you mention that most of your recipients aren't don't have DVD players, may i ask how they're watching the VCDs you have been giving them? If they've been watching them on their computers, then you may have some other options. Simply creating a high bitrate MPEG-1 file (say, 3Mbps or better) and burning this to a data CD-R works nicely. You can choose the full resolution (640x480 at 1.000 pixel aspect ratio) frame size instead of being limited to 352x240. Usually all your audience will have to do is double-click the file name and it will play in media player. Also, when these people do eventually get a DVD player, most modern players will be able to play these data discs just fine even if they can't play SVCD. You won't be able to create custom menus, but the movie will still play. Of course, at 3Mbps you can only fit about 30 minutes on a disc.

Personally, i think VHS still looks better than 3Mbps MPEG-1. You really need to get up into the DVD range of 4Mbps MPEG-2 in order to beat VHS.

I finished my film and rendered it to MiniDV and VCD. VHS tapes made from the MiniDV cassette were far superior to the VCD disk.

I recorded the MDV file via firewire onto a MiniDV cassette, using my camcorder, and dubbed onto VHS from the composite video output on the camcorder. The quality seemed, to me, as good as that of the best pro VHS tapes, which is pretty good.

The VCD quality was much inferior--not pixellated, just softer. I'd go with VHS for mass consumption, at least until I get a DVD burner.

Yes, my recipients would have a choice between using their computer or using their VHS tape player. (And they would be the first recipients ever - I have not released anything to anyone yet.)

Due to comments made here it sounds like I really need to unbox that Mitsubishi and give it a spin! What I really meant when referring to S-VHS, however, was the mode of connection between computer and VHS deck or between MiniDV camcorder and VHS deck. An S-VHS cable (am I saying the right thing?) supposedly carries separate luminance and video for a much clearer signal transfer than that accomplished with standard video cable.

(I tried to look that up on the Internet to verify I had it right and ended up at > http://www.homecabling.com/hcnew/products/outlets/svhsmods.asp < which was talking about sending an S-VHS signal THROUGH THE WALLS OF YOUR HOME along with other network cabling. Bizzare. I wouldn't have thought you could send S-VHS over distances greater than a few feet. )

Kelly, the idea of creating a high bitrate MPEG-1 file and burning that to a data CD-R sounds like a fantastic idea. I will certainly give that a try!!!

Thanks for the link IAN - I'll be sure to check it out. I need to ask you and Kelly though - HOW do you guys include links in these forum postings, like I see you are doing, that show up as only an underlined word? Do you sneak in some HTML code or something?

sdgates, you're in the middle of a very common bit of confusion, but it's so widespread that you shouldn't feel bad about being in it. ;)

S-VHS is a format for recording the video signal on tape and has nothing to do with cabling. "S" stands for Super. If you think along the lines of how Super-8mm was better than 8mm, well, you're sorta close. S-VHS is a higher resolution picture recorded with a stronger signal on the tape, and hence is incompatible with regular VHS. As with Super 8mm, you need a special player to be able to play it.

S-Video is a cabling/signal transfer method for wiring video devices together and has nothing to do with the recording format. "S" stands for Separate, which means that there are two sets of wires for separate chrominance and luminance signals. This is contrasted to the usual composite wiring with just a single set of wires with both signals mixed together. Composite signals can interfere with each other and result in some loss of definition and clarity. S-Video is sharper, clearer, brighter, and more colorful (at least it can be proven so in the lab; it might not be that easy to see the difference by eye), and can usually be carried a greater distance before the signal diminishes. Often composite cabling degrades the signal badly before 30'. I've seen S-Video installations using several hundred feet of cable and still have a crystal clear signal.

The confusion probably comes from the fact that most S-VHS VCRs include S-Video connections, and most older standard VHS VCRs didn't. After a while the consumers simply identified the two "S"s with each other.

Yup - you are right - S-VHS versus S-Video. I actually had run across the terminology before (long before getting my MiniDV camera a month ago) and had forgotten all about it.

Very interesting what you said about the distance that S-Video carries. If I ever hard-wire my home for networking (802.11x wireless is good.... but cannot match standard 100 Gbps hard-wired Ethernet cabling), I'll need to consider running S-Video as well (per what was being illustrated on that web site I referenced)! That would enable the sending of video directly from my computer out to the television in the living room!

But I'd still like to know how people hide Internet URL's "under" a single underlined word in these postings. What is the trick there?

You were right about including the HTML to provide the links - unfortunately the s/w driving this forum is trying to be realy helpful and it will not let me show you what that html should look like! I know how to do it in a normal web page, but this isn't a normal web page. It's the standard syntax, so have a look at this.

Ian G.

To get a link like this: Click here! It's fun!
type in this:

<a href=http://www.disgruntledmasses.com/forum/index>Click here! It's fun!</a>

IanG, if you want to include the < symbol in a message, type in this:

&#60;

Okay - testing this. (The link Ian provided shows quotes around the URL where Kelly's example didn't. Maybe it doesn't make a difference.)
No quotes -
Cool Lacie external drives here!
Quotes -
Cool Lacie external drives here!

Looks like quotes don't make a difference.
Testing useage of "<" -

Just one code chunk in front of the first "<" -
Cool Lacie external drives <here!

One before each "<" -
Cool Lacie external drives <here <!

One before every "<" as well as every ">" -
Cool Lacie external drives <here <</a <>!

Hmmmm.... Well, ampersand pound 60 semi-colon didn't seem to work for me (to illustrate how the HTML code should look). No big deal. At least I got the URL code chunk to work okay. Thanks Ian and Kelly.

Chienworks - thanks for that, I was using gt and lt rather than the ansi values. You live and learn!

Ian G.

IanG: &lt; and &gt; are standard HTML metacodes so they *should* work fine, but apparently this forum software filters them. Oh well, whatever.

What annoys me are the folks who leave the semicolon off the end of metacodes. True, in MSIE they're mostly optional. But the HTML standard requires them most other browsers follow the standard.

Well, my personal pet hate is people who provide absolute links to files on their disks! But, dragging this back to something vaguely relevant, I thought there were some help pages for these forums which defined which html tags could be used? Or maybe it was a different forum - old age and all that!

Ian G.

Now if you really want to be nice include a target window in your link like this:

<a href="http://www.disgruntledmasses.com/forum/index" target="_new">Click here! It's fun!</a>

This will open the link in a new window so people don’t loose their place in the forum posts when they follow you link. ;-)

~jr

Now that would be cool. I'll need to make a note of that!