Well, the MPEG1 format of VCD is 352x240 (or 352x288 PAL) which is 1/2 of both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of 720x480 DV. NTSC VCD= 88,480 pixels per frame. NTSC DV is 345,600 pixels. So, it's really more like 1/4 resolution and this is "spatial resolution." NTSC VCD has a "temporal resolution" of 30 frames per second, but DV is actually 59.94 interlaced fields per second. So, VCD has 1/4 the spatial resolution and 1/2 the temporal resolution of NTSC DV. So, in answer to your question, YES, the VCD will have significantly reduced resolution from that obtained from your camera.

John

John

really? is it 352x240? how come the quality of VCD i watched yesterday was as good as DVD? IT WASNT LOOKING LIKE 352x240? what do u guys think? thanks for helping.

Are you calling me a liar? :)

John

John and Bob

While we're here, could you guys explain the nature of lines of resolution on an analogue tv and how vhs and dvd compare?
i.e. if vhs is 240 lines of resolution, how does the pixel count measure up for a suitable picture?

...the nature of lines of resolution on an analogue tv...

You have no idea what a can of worms you've just opened here. By the time you're finished reading, your head will be spinning worse than a ride on the biggest roller coaster :-)

Having said that, here are a "few" links to get you started. Enjoy.

Mike (another Canuck)

Resolution Test Patterns
UNDERSTANDING TV CAMERA RESOLUTION
TEST & MEASUREMENT papers
Videotek Application Notes
Essential Video Resources
Snell & Wilcox Online Bookshelf

In addition, here are links to three threads from rec.video.desktop where this issue got "somewhat" heated at times.
Why does one Line require a pair of Lines (black & white) ??
What resolution is VHS
Television - how many Visible scan lines ??

Are you sure it wasn't a SVCD, with the oddball resolution of 480x480? SVCDs are encoded with MPEG2, like a DVD, instead of MPEG1.

SVCD is 480x480, but at least it's interlaced so you don't lose any temporal resolution. Unfortunately, the bitrate is only about 2500 Kbits/sec, which isn't high enough to handle motion particularly well.

John

Coming off good clean sources VCD can look acceptable, I'd reckon there's more VCDs sold than DVDs and VHS combined, don't forget the Asian market.
All that said though it's what you get used to, the UK used to have some broadcast system that was probably not much better than VCD and people put up with it for years, only got switched off not that long ago.
Put SD up against HDV and you wonder how your ever watched SD, put HDV up against true HD and the same thing happens. Same goes with film, 16mm looks pretty sad up against 70mm and yet decent Super 8 is quite watchable, a few well known at the time Australian series were shot on S8 and they still look OK.
Again it's not what you're watching it on it's what you're watching that makes the most impression.
Bob.

Mike

Thanks for the links.
Luckily 2 of them were down so I didn't have to read them. And the others gave me a headache.

All I can remember is "the confluence of watts spirals the matrix of the DNA where undue dynamic hyperbole meshes with suitable quarks unless a diaphram is present to circumvent viable redirection."

But seriously it seems as though there isn't really a lot of difference between a vcd or dvd or vhs if played on an analogue t.v. for normal viewing.

At least that is what I see on a 28" t.v.

This might have something to do with how the signal gets from the player to the TV. With a composite feed down a cheap bit of coax nothing has much of a chance.

Bob.

i am sorry guys for giving a hard time and confusion, i think what i watched was SVCD because for sure the resolution wasnt 352x240. I am just making sure because i know burning a DVD will be much better, but currently i dont have a DVD burner.
So, can Nero burn SVCD after i export mpeg2 from Vegas?