Storino03

I've seen 740x560 or something like that, with sizes around 750MB, and look DVD-quality like, but...shouldn't it technically be half the file size if you are doing it at 320x240??

OddbOd

Errr no actually, 640x480 is 4x the size of 320x240, it would be double the area if you only doubled the length of one axis. 740x560 is 5.4x the size of 320x240, it's also not a real example since MPEG uses 16x16 pixel blocks.

Originally Posted by Storino03

What I don't understand is how some people are able to encode DVDs at LESS THAN 300MB and still keep a 320x240 resolution with good sound. It's like...IMPOSSIBLE for me...-_-

Then it's time you tried Nero Digital or an equivalent cutting-edge compressor, the results are very impressive. By way of example I have a backup of a 90 minute movie compressed down to 200MB that took under 2 hours to compress compared to the 4-5 hours it would take using DivX/XviD with equivalent quality.

Anyway I've gone a wee bit off topic here, sorry

Gokuu_Elemental

Well, using PocketDivX Encoder, I've encoded the same 30 minute episode under 640x480 and 320x240. The 640x480 file was around twice as big which I would believe due to the resolution and I tried to include the highest bitrates possible on both files. I think I used about 400kbps as the bitrate for the 320x240 file while the bitrate was 906 for the 640x480 file. I stuck with 906kbps because the original file was 903kbps, so I didn't feel the need to go higher. The file was bigger, yet it was like comparing cable and satellite.

P.S. I still need to try Nero Digital, I'm going to try it for sure when I get that Dual-Core Processor

onesojourner

i had an old toshiba e300. 200mhz processor. it will play movies fine. no dropped frames.