Talk:Video CD

Wanyan

In China there exist many articles that the company Wanyan produced the world first VCD player (and that they also invented the technology).

company name: 万燕 ('wanyan' in pinyin) http://www.chinanews.com.cn/zhonghuawenzhai/2003-04-30/new/27.htm

For reference, see "China, Inc.: How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World" by Ted C. Fishman, pp. 195-196.

The question is, should this be included in the wikipedia. 151.201.132.210 09:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't remotely accurate. Sony and Philips developed the format for the most part, and I doubt any Chinese company had anything to do with it. They might have had something to do with the (much later) SVCD format developed in China, but that's an entirely separate article. Rcooley (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across an English webpage which sounds similar. http://china.org.cn/english/BAT/108383.htm Though it is poorly worded, they seem to be suggesting that Wanyan was the first domestic Chinese company to produce a VCD player. Rcooley (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas greetings

Section "Such incompatibility is a major problem that prevents consumers from distributing their home-made VCDs as their video Christmas greetings.":

This implies that consumers have a standard practice of distibuting video christmas greetings. Is there somewhere that this is the case? -- cbr 17:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Other Disc

What was the name for the "Video CDs" that had about the size of an LP? Eptalon

You might be asking about the CED (Capacitance Electronic Disc) which is the size of LP. Late 1970s, early 1980s technology. Look here: http://www.links.net/dox/flix/ced/

Another good site is CED Magic, which is fascinating; and there was also MCA DiscoVision, a precursor of Laserdisc, which was terribly buggy. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're talking about Laserdisc. We had players in schools during the 90s, before DVD was widespread. Hornpipe2 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and they were very widely touted for education. Jeh (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

CD+R CDs

Is there any way to have a CD burner that burns CD+R discs to have them be compatible with VCD players? --SuperDude 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Ummm... What is a CD+R disk? That's a new one on me. VCD players should play normal home-made VCDs except that a lot of those old players won't read any sort of burned CD. DVD players are so cheap now, I don't know why anybody would bother keeping one of those dinosaurs around. --Freddy Freddy011 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you need CORRECT, and not claimed, software. I have 3 VCD players, all from true imports bought in Asia. The only software program I have used to burn VCDs that makes disks playable on VCD players (as opposed to (S)VCD capable DVD players) is Nero. The issue is HOW the video is encoded (as in the order of the stringing of bytes, et cetera). The reason for keeping one of those "dinosaurs" around is simple, they play the current variants of the format that are not compatible with DVD players. A VCD costs a fraction of the price of a DVD, and if correctly mastered, there is little noticeable difference on televisions smaller than 32 inches. Lostinlodos 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to make CD+R Video CD's work in a DVD Player as you just need to burn the disc properly, in Windows Movie Maker. J2F Duck (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible because there is no such thing as a CD+R. 86.176.35.147 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Adoption" section NPOV issues

The adoption section makes some assertions about VCD availability in the U.S. that are opinion and not NPOV. While I don't disagree with some of the statements personally they are still opinion. Claiming VCD's should have replaced VHS tapes is opinion and should be attributed or removed. Also the statements on the U.S. film industry's response to VCD's comes across as somewhat biased against them. I also the section seems to blame the U.S. studios as the sole reason VCD never caught on in the U.S. without presenting the alternative view that the downsides of VCDs such the need to put most films on more then one VCD may have played a role in its lack of use in the U.S. We need to cite statements by the movie industry or articles for the claim copy protection was the main reason for studios not supporting VCD. --Cab88 21:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, exactly the point(s) I was going to make, so I won't labor the issue. How long do we wait for the author of the section to fix it before we jump in? --Freddy Freddy011 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The lack of adoption in the US of video formats is historically verifiable, even if the opinions are not. Comparable High Definition (HD)(progressive) and High Resolution (HR)(interlaced)formats equal, or nearly equal in quality (measured in MB/S on base resolution) standard red-laser formats exist throughout Asia now, and are growing in popularity, costing, again, a fraction of the cost, being playable and recordable on all current computer DVD drives. That along with VCDs still being quite popular in many countries. Why not add a comparative rebuttal as opposed to nuking the entire section, as I'm sure with effort some users could find references to quotes from Hollywood from the time period stating that they would fight VCDs. Lostinlodos 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsure about this

They are much cheaper than DVDs. The DVD of a film may cost anywhere from three to nine times as much as the VCD. On the other hand, VCDs do not come with the bonus features like that of DVDs, such as choice of language, (removable) subtitles, chapters, deleted scenes, theatrical and television previews, interviews, outtakes and production notes.

While DVDs are more expensive then VCDs, I'm not particularly sure whether this 3-9x is very reliable. I don't think it's that much unless your comparing pirated VCDs to pirated DVDs. Of course this may very well be a valid comparison but I think it should be made clear Nil Einne 10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: The average price of VCDs (in USD without tax/duty) is $2-$9 depending on source. DVDs run $1-$30 for single disc movies. So 2x-3x is probable closer to the truth. |Lostinlodos 08:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, $30 is 15x $2, so the point that DVDs can cost several times more than VCDs is well-taken. ~DAL.

Point taken. I meant that most places sell DVDs for $10-$20 even though the MSRP is often around $30. Though places like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, 5 and Dime, et al sell them as low as $2--Lostinlodos 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Like a review

I can't help but thinking that this article sounds a bit like a review. Although keeping a NPOV it looks as if someone has "published" a review. Aaronsingh 15:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do Video CDs really deserve classification

From my experience the 'adoption' of video CD's in Asia is somewhat of a misnomer, mpeg video on a compact disc is very popular but it generally does not adhere to any standard - rather just sticking any MPEG/AVI video that happens to be 700mb onto a disc. It isn't really a video cd, merely a data disc with a video on it and as such does not really deserve any special classification. Opinions? Sinrize 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "(All) Video CDs are just a data disk with video on it; they therefore do not deserve special classificaiton", then I think that's incorrect. If you put a Video CD into a DVD player, it will (usually) play it. If you put a CD with a video file on it into a DVD player, it probably won't play it. Therefore, Video CDs are more than just a data disk with video on it (they have a format specification). But if you mean "the CDs that are described as being adopted in Asia are just CDs with video files on them, and not real Video CDs", then that may be the case (please provide references), but it doesn't really match the question "Do Video CDs really deserve classification?"

--response-- I'm not sure where Sinrize gets his information from; but I make regular and frequent trips to China, Hong Kong, Japan and Korea; and on lesser occasions to other parts of the region. I'm an avid collector of VCDs and can vouch that buying them from a reputable dealer will almost always get you a standard VCD/SVCD. XVCDs (again from reputable retailers) are clearly marked. Admittedly nine-times-out-of-ten you get some avi/mpeg file on a disc if you buy from a street vendor. If you're quoting someone else's story please do post a link; I'd love to see where they source they're information from. Lostinlodos 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, precisely, what is a VCD? What filesystem does it have? Any of the CD filesystems: ISO 9660 or UDF? And then, what structure is on a disk, if not just a list of video files? (I'm trying to make one)

I notice that the concept of "track" or "title" is absent from the article.

--Jerome Potts (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it's late, but the filesystem is basically the standard CD filing system. However, what is different is that the disc is authored using Mode 2, Form 2. This sacrifices the normal CD error detection and correction for a slightly faster bit rate. Video is able to tolerate modest errors which will go relatively un-noticed. The practical upshot is that a nominally 700 MB disc holds roughly 800 MB of video. 86.166.67.117 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

English

Can someone familiar with the subject do a rewrite in clear English? This reads as pseudo-translated gibberish. The inclusion of at least one german word makes me think that some editor tried using an auto-translator without checking for readability. Alvis 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken-english to English translation: Done. I couldn't understand quite what point the author was trying to get across several times, so reviews are welcome. It's readable now, and factually accurate in any case. I don't vouch for the 2-3 paragraphs of info on origination and adoption of the XVCD formats, but I'm not absolutely sure they're wrong either (seems quite likely), so I just translated for readability and refrained from my desire to remove them. It could use some more clean-up, as lots of the info was redundant and some was just haphazardly slapped on, and I'm sure I didn't remove it all. Rcooley (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've finished completely cleaning-up the article now. Removed any broken English, irrelevant trivia, or potentially incorrect info. Rcooley (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Video CD, Super Video CD, and China Video Disc?

I just finished reading all three of these articles, and they all read identical to one another. The only real difference is the resolutions. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to merge all three articles into just one. (Similar to how Betamax, Super Betamax, and ED Beta are merged into one.) - Theaveng 18:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The SVCD and CVD articles are rather similar to each other, but both are completely different than the VCD article, from beginning to end. Rcooley (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think that these two articles should be merged, as the only difference between SVCD and China Video Disc being that the China Video Disc has slightly lower resolution and is used in Asia. Like I said on the China Video Disc page about the Hurricane and it's pilot, mergeing these two articles would be like joining a Hawker Tempest V and it pilot. So I think strongly that the two articles should be merged. J2F Duck (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say though that I agree with Theaveng above that the Video CD article, the SVCD article and the China Video Disc article should be merged into one, as what the guy siad above the only difference are the screen resoloutions. Just like the Betamax examples. J2F Duck (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the Video CD talk page. Discussions about merging CVD and SVCD don't belong here. Any comments about the proposed merger should be on the CVD talk page. Just click the "Discuss" link in the Merge Proposal box at the top of either the CVD or SVCD article. Rcooley (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My citations and edits

Finding sources about VCD on the internet is like pulling teeth. It's quite unpopular in the US, and most popular in lower-income countries (with the least access to the 'net). It is a recent technology, yet just old enough that the most major events happen to pre-date widespread internet access ('93/'94). It's the perfect formula for a major technology which would simply be considered a non-notable phantom, per Wikipedia policy. Still, thoroughly scraping the net for sources seems to have turned up just enough necessary background.

The only citations I really couldn't find are confirmation (other than ESSTech press releases) of VCD's growing popularity, circa 2004, and perhaps some US movie studios openly refusing to support VCD, circa 1993. Other than that, the article's now got as many citations as anyone could want, and is as well-written of an article as any. I'm largely finished editing (rewriting?) the article, and would like to encourage others to add in anything I may have missed.

Since it seems like a waste to throw away perfectly good citations that took so long to find, here's a big flat list of a few sources about VCD, DVD (and one EVD) I didn't find a use for, for anyone that might want it:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2003/06/16/stories/2003061600700500.htm http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/news/Details.aspx?NewsId=1432 http://www.mochamedia.com/OldSite/dvd.htm http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020524S0091 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/11/content_423859.htm http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/03/51135 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7024536.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2840479.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1678473.stm http://www.miqrogroove.com/writing/history-of-dvd/ http://www.tnttrader.com/History%20of%20the%20DVD%202.htm http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/bchafy/cdb/info/vcd.html http://www.km.philips.com/laseroptics/techno/books/main.htm http://www.esstech.com/products/consumer/consumer_av.shtm http://www.esstech.com/IR/PR_2000/10-18-00.pdf http://www.esstech.com/IR/PR_1997/02-21-97.pdf http://www.esstech.com/IR/Pr_2003/01_29_03.pdf http://www.esstech.com/IR/Pr_2003/08_18_03.pdf http://www.esstech.com/IR/Archive_PDF/03bus.pdf

Rcooley (talk 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the following

Yesterday I removed the following bulleted list from the article with the edit summary "remove wp:OR and wp:peacock." I am posting in response to Rcooley's request for justification. My justification is italicized in brackets below.

VCD does have a few advantages over DVD-Video:

• Unike DVD, the VCD format has no region coding.Many VCD players can compensate for the differing frame rate and pixel count between NTSC and PAL/SECAM TV systems, so discs can be played on any compatible machine worldwide. [This is a misleading statement, while the DVD format supports region coding, it is not explicitly a requirement for mastering or distribution, and there are many worldwide and regional DVD releases which do not have region coding. Region coding is a very minimal mitigating factor in format choice, especially considering the age of the VCD format.]
• Some titles available on VCD may not be available on DVD and/or VHS in the prospective buyer's region. [peacock terms, "Some titles may not be available" in "prospective buyer's region". No attribution or sources. What specific region? Which movies?]
• VCD is also a very popular format for karaoke in East Asia, where picture quality is not a paramount concern. [This is a selective statement - While VCD's for karaoke may be popular in East Asia, it is not an explicit criteria as an "advantage" over DVD. "picture quality is not a paramount concern" is OR, and not sourced. I'd also note most karaoke players today play Karaoke DVDs which offer the same feature set of a Karaoke VCD, but with additional capacity[1]]

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lack of region coding is not misleading. It's a simple fact that VCDs are not region coded. Whether it's "minimal" or not is debatable, but not for you or I to decide. Even if minimal, it's still an advantage. The sentence makes no suggestion either way, so the point is moot.
• Availability is too general of an issue to cite every specific instance. I think it's pretty obvious that not all movies are available on DVD. If nothing else, there will be plenty of older movies that were released on VCD, but simply have not be re-released since DVDs came out. No doubt there are innumerable such cases. The same can certainly be said of VHS, or LaserDiscs. But if you insist on a source for the obvious: http://www.vcdgallery.com/help.htm
• I could argue with you about Karaoke discs, but I have a hard time caring. Perhaps someone else will. Rcooley (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did not say the actual fact that VCD lacks region coding is misleading, no one is disputing that VCD's don't have region coding. This information was included under a section heading of "VCD does have a few advantages..." The statement in conjunction with the heading implies that "VCDs have an advantage because of lack of region coding." My reasoning is simple, not all DVDs or other video formats explicitly have region coding either, though they may support the feature. Additionally, many DVD players can also "compensate" between PAL and NTSC.

• A generally vague statement like "hey there are some of X that aren't on Y in someplaces." Will be challenged. Even a single example will help effectively illustrate the point. I don't doubt there are instances where there are VCDs that have not been released on DVD. The onus is on the editor, not the reader to verify this though.

• Ok, we won't argue about it then. My comment still stands - There is no attribution to the statement that "picture quality is not a paramount concern" to East Asians, and it reads as original research until sourced. Additionally, the section intends to address technical aspects of the VCD which have advantages over DVDs - popularity in East Asia does not speak to that criteria. Cheers AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some (most) DVDs are region coded, while VCDs are not, is clearly an advantage. You said as much before.

Anything and everything can be challenged. You've made no comment about the source I gave you. I don't see what point you're trying to make about "editor" vs. "reader". Rcooley (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: the source you provided - it is a general VCD FAQ from a retailer who is attempting to sell VCDs, it states: "They do not have regional lock codes like the DVD, so you can buy VCDs from us and play them anywhere whether you live in Alaska or Zimbabwe." This can be largely addressed by creating a table, does a comparison of the the VCD format to DVD, instead of attempting to explicit assert advantages. It would feature specific column names like "Supports Region Encoding?" and check boxes like "yes" or "no". AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see what point you're trying to make about "editor" vs. "reader"" - if we make claims, they have to be supported. If the claims can't be adequately supported, they shouldn't appear the article until they are. Believe it is best to move the content to the talk page, and attempt to gather information that either supports or refutes it, and then place it back into the article. So, like I said, the onus is on the editors to adequately source those statements. I feel this is reasonable. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is a table less objectionable than the (existing) list saying the same thing? I also wonder what other information you intend to put in such a table? Presumably, it needs more than one column. I suggest you read through WP:PROVEIT and eventually Wikipedia:Editing_policy. Rcooley (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully ask that you refrain from accusing me of "flying in the face" of WP policy and other accusatory statements. With regard to the table, I'll clarify. The table is not to "assert advantages of VCD." It would be a factual comparison of two formats and their specs. Yes, there will be multiple columns, For example, take a look at the table in This table or this one to get a better idea of what I mean. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, region encoding sucks, but whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage ultimately depends on your point of view. Somebody clearly thought it was an advantage, or else it wouldn't be there. If region encoding is an issue for you, you get a multi-region player. It will play VCDs into the bargain.

• "Some titles..." - I can reverse this statement and it is still true! Try finding anything except Bollywood or Cantonese VCDs here, and I suspect they're mostly pirated copies anyway. No advantage.

• I also choose not to argue re. karaoke. Picture quality not a paramount concern in East Asia? Hmmm... 202.7.183.131 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

VCD is also a very popular format for karaoke in East Asia, where picture quality is not a paramount concern.

I'm putting the statement back, simply because I live in SE Asia and East Asia, where VCD is the most common carrier for karaoke disc. 165.21.154.70 (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Prominence of VCD Asia is already covered earlier in the same section. Saying "picture quality in such discs is not a paramount concern." is unsourced original research. That statement must be attributed. As tempting as it is, you can't rely on personal anecdotal experience to make broad unsourced statements on wikipedia. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement of questionable accuracy

I've removed the following lines from the adoption section and noted on the edit summary to refer to the talk page.

However, VCD has simultaneously seen significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD. Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing. [2]

The included reference to ESS [3] does not adequately support the claim that VCD popularity is rising. It is an 2003 annual company report published in 2004, which makes a passing mention to their product "Visba 4 for VCD" and their comparable product "Vibratto II for DVD". No metrics are provided that support the claim of rise in popularity, other than "it is quickly rising in popularity" (in 2003). If you visit the companies product page today [4] you will see the Visba 4 VCD product line is no longer posted to the website and the Vibratto DVD product still remains in a newer iteration. Additionally, it is a 5 year old document, and should not be used to make forward looking statement of VCD's current popularity. It's 2008, and this document speaks to sales which took place in 2003.

While I agree that VCD is a low cost alternative to DVD, the claims that VCD has "seen significant new growth" lacks reference outside of this document. I think, additional references should be found before it is put back into the article AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources in the article are similarly aged. VCD isn't Blu-ray, there isn't a lot of info being frequently published about it (and promoted).

I can't imagine why you would say "no metrics are provided". The statement "70 million VCD players were sold worldwide" is as clear as can be. Somewhat besides the point but here is also a 2 year older ESSTech press release saying the same thing: http://www.esstech.com/IR/PR_2000/10-18-00.pdf

ESSTech's current sales aren't very relevant, let alone a sales of a single product line... They openly admit they're now being out-competed by Chinese chip firms, and have sold off their DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray chip business.

I think you've got this whole thing backwards. The ref is an appropriate and reliable source. Unless you have some other source that contradicts the information figures on worldwide VCD player or disc sales, it should not just be removed because you suspect it might be wrong. That last sentence could however, reasonably be rephrased to sound a bit less like a prediction. Rcooley (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership issues aside. You seem to be responding in general frustration to my concerns. You mention a "70 million VCD" - but I haven't taken issues with any such statement. Documents from 2000 saying there is an increase in VCD sales, do not translate into accurate representation VCD sales or popularity in 2008. Very plainly - I challenge the general statement "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing." This statement needs to be adequately referenced and attributed, it may have been accurate 6 or 8 years ago, but it needs to be re-addressed. I removed potentially questionable the content, notified other editors of my reasoning and posted to the talk page. That is one of the primary uses of a talk page. So, of course I'm removing the content - until a consensus is reached. The ESS pdf references multiple countries (India, Indonesia, South America, etc). If the article was to state "In 2003 there was significant growth in the following markets..." would address my concern as to the truthful accuracy of the statement in 2008. And not withstanding the difficulties in finding proper sources for VCD news and sales, I believe any statements regarding the current state of VCD's and their popularity should be supported by additional references, which I will gladly assist in helping to find. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Frustration and ownership aren't involved. I think your style needs work, as your edits, so far, fly in the face of WP policy... I don't see any reason why you would need to remove article content to discuss it here, nor have I ever seen anyone else do so. If everyone felt the same need, I'm sure there wouldn't be anything left of any articles. You did not mention any intention to improve, research, or reinstate it until now, and did not utilize the talk page until I contacted you and requested you do so. You did not use any tags on content you doubted, nor did you even restrict your edits to rewriting or removing the one sentence you find debatable, but instead an entire well-supported paragraph. Your edits also seem extremely one-sided, as the references about the rise of DVD are even older. 2004 is the most recent citation in the entire article. But I digress...

The PDF discusses worldwide VCD popularity, not just a few markets, so the change you are now suggesting seems strangely and unnecessarily narrow. The two PDFs also show it was at the very least a 3+year trend, not just "2003" by any means.

I wish you the best of luck in finding additional sources. I don't know how I can help you there, (see the list of links above your comments here) but feel free to ask if you believe I can. Rcooley (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the source that supports the claim that "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing", not in 2003 and not now. Rather it suggests that VCD is losing popularity to DVD in its original market, which may or may not be offset by gains in emerging markets. 202.7.183.131 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The "70 million" figure provided by the PDF is not "nothing". They don't explicitly state "70m is more" because they expect the reader to have at least the most cursory familiarity with the subject. For that matter, they don't explicitly say that VCD is decreasing in popularity in China, either. If you need the report spelled out for you, try this: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200408/10/eng20040810_152444.html Rcooley (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he referring to this [PDF, which is the source I removed from the article and posted concerns about - not the one that you introduced in your subsequent replies. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I assumed, and the one I addressed. "70 million" is found only in that PDF, and the link I gave is from a few months later (2004), and discusses the same issues. I think you in fact may be confusing the two. Rcooley (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I Stand corrected. I was looking at multiple references at the time. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

70 million is nothing. It's a number. On its own, the figure is meaningless. You try to belittle me, implying I lack "the most cursory familiarity with the subject" because I don't know if 70 million is more or less than the total number of VCD players sold in 2002. Well how many were sold in 2002??? You say if I need it spelled out for me (I don't) I should read an ESS press release published in a propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party. I think you should apologise.

I never said it was explicit that VCD was on the decline in China. I said it was suggested:

While China, the original mass market for VCD, is beginning to adopt DVD, VCD is quickly gaining popularity in India, Indonesia, and other emerging markets such as Russia, South America and Africa.

My reading of this is "the VCD market in China is saturated, and DVD is going to erode it, but we still have the rest of Asia, etc." I'd like to know if you disagree.

This source, a trade journal, reports an 11% drop in VCD software spending in 2003: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4395454/World-DVD-markets-in-position.html 202.7.183.131 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The quoted statement is too vague for me to determine if they are suggesting that the VCD market will begin to decline, or if they just believe it might not grow as quickly as it had in the past. So yes, I do disagree with your "reading" of it. In either case, it is an uncertain future projection, not a factual statement. Rcooley (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This "vague" statement, "uncertain future projection" was the source for your assertion that "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing". Personally, I don't think it is vague, the author is in the VCD business and was trying to put the market in a favourable light. 202.7.183.131 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true. I directed you to that article, but not at all in relation to that particular statement you are now obsessing over. Rcooley (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please quote for me from the article anything other than that particular statement that supports the deleted text that sparked this discussion. 202.7.183.131 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From the PDF: "Last year, it is estimated that 70 million VCD players were sold worldwide."

From the article: "'Surveys showed that the entire VCD products market recorded more than 40 per cent growth last year,'" Rcooley (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was almost six years ago. The statement that there is still significant VCD growth could not be (and likely is) not accurate today. Let's refocus - There was growth in 2003. I agree with that, we can even reintroduce statements to the article noting the growth for 2003. To be clear: You still can't say "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing." It is a general statement, that is not sourced and implies, that in 2008 there is continued rise in VCD use. I can find no sources that support that statement as truthful in the present time frame. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"six years"? 2004 was FOUR years ago. More than that, I can only re-state what I've already said... Information on VCD is difficult to find. The fact that you can't find more recent figures isn't proof one way or the other. (You'll have a similarly difficult time finding more recent statistics to support any other statements in the article.) That you suspect the statement might be wrong is POV/OR, is also not proof or justification. But in any case, leaving the article in an inconsistent and hacked-to-pieces state for several weeks is not acceptable either, so I suggest you do something. Rcooley (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The report was released in 2004, however, metrics like that take time compile and they represent data for the 2003 year. I also said, "Almost six years." Let's not overreact please? If the choice is to put information that has potentially has depreciated in accuracy into the article Versus not - I strongly opt to keep the information out or clearly denote that the information is from 2003 and is not representative of today. As I've already said if you'd like to re-integrate to the section something like

"In 2003, VCD has simultaneously saw significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD."

I'd support the inclusion. Regarding your accusations of original research, I have not inserted any information into the article which is not supported by sources, additionally you should not include the statement "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing." until you can find a reliable source to support the claim. Thanks, and I appreciate your continue civility in discussing this. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quickly. 1) Dec 31, 2003 is 2004 to me, but call it 2003 and you're still very nearly 1 year off, which is not "close". 2) I don't understand why you continue to insist on awkward and strangely, unnecessarily-narrow wording, when the references explicitly discuss worldwide popularity which is much more relevant. 3) I don't know why you are waiting for me to act, and suggesting what *I* should do, I'm not the one who removed the two relevant paragraphs from the article, and left it in the current inconsistent state... But since it won't take 1% as long as this endless and pointless discussion has, I will. 4) POV editing can take the form of removing information, just as easily as adding it, so that's not a strong argument. 5) The only thing I've accused you of, so far, is poor editing style, and pointed to relevant WP policies. You, on the other hand, have accused me of ownership, frustration, incivility, etc. 6) I'm not going to add "please" and "thank you" to every sentence just because you keep reading too much into my words. Rcooley (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I believed we are having a discussion, and I was waiting until some consensus was reached before editing the article in any major way out of respect for you and other editors. I don't know that I can make this any clearer - I removed a statement claiming "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing." Because no source supports that statement. I'm sorry if you think I've accused you of anything - but your answers have been terse - and it's obvious you are annoyed by the discussion, no need to obfuscate it. You reworked this article and largely edited it and even list it on your user page That said - please do not add the sentence. "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing" until a source with data post 2003 is found. Thanks for understanding. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I just reverted your edits you put back a whole slew of things that currently do not have consensus. You also added back unnecessary descriptor words like "very" and "extremely." I think it's time to get some mediation in here. I appreciate that you want to get this article improved, I do too, but this is the wrong way to go about it. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

202.7.183.131 said "This source, a trade journal, reports an 11% drop in VCD software spending in 2003: [5]. I accept the Screen digest article as a good source, but a couple comments. The article does say

"For the first time the number of DVD software units shipped by international distributors was more than the combined total of VHS and VCD shipments, up almost 62 per cent to 662m, compared with the previous year. By comparison, VHS and VCD shipments to international retailers continued downward in 2003 falling a further 32 per cent (256m) and 11 per cent (284m) respectively."

But this addresses only a software component. Regarding market penetration and installation of VCD hardware units in the Asia Pacific -

"Video hardware adoption is somewhat different in the Asia-Pacific. Our analysis of the Asia-Pacific market covers three 'mature markets'--Australia, New Zealand and Japan--and 11 'emerging markets' China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.Unique to the Asia-Pacific (excluding the mature markets) is the VCD player. Launched in 1994, the VCD player accounted for around 15 per cent of the world's video hardware installed base at the end of 2003. The number of VCD players installed in homes across the Asia-Pacific grew by just over two per cent to 95m in 2003, whilst penetration of the VCD player in the region remained stable at 16 per cent of television households over the same period."

I think it's fair to say VCD installed userbase the Asia Pacific maintained in 2003, with a small percentage increase. I think we've established there was growth in 2003. As I've said, it is now 2008 - and I have yet to see or find any source that supports the claim that VCD use is still on the rise. Or more specifically that "Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing." AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

For housekeeping reasons, I've made a new section here facilitate the mediation. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the main contention over "While never gaining a foothold in the United States[5] commercial VCDs are common in Europe,[6] and popular throughout Asia[7] (except Japan), with 8 million VCD players sold in China in 1997 alone,[8] and more than half of all Chinese households owning at least one VCD player by 2005.[9]"? Looking up above, I see that the dates of the sources are the primary question. Or do I have this wrong? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I've not brought any concern regarding those statements. I removed sentences from lower in the Adoption section. I know the above looks kinda of messy, might be easy to miss it. I'll pull it and bullet them down here when I get a free moment today. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed 3 unsourced bullets and the sub-heading "VCD does have a few advantages over DVD-Video" - I stated my initial reasoning above regarding the removal.

• Unike DVD, the VCD format has no region coding.Many VCD players can compensate for the differing frame rate and pixel count between NTSC and PAL/SECAM TV systems, so discs can be played on any compatible machine worldwide.
• Some titles available on VCD may not be available on DVD and/or VHS in the prospective buyer's region.
• VCD is also a very popular format for karaoke in East Asia, where picture quality is not a paramount concern.

The second edit was the removal of

"However, VCD has simultaneously seen significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD. Overall, the popularity of VCD is actually increasing. [6]"

As I've said, this wording implies there is still 'significant growth' in these markets, when the data comes from 2003. The last sentence is not supported by the source. Others participating in the mediation - please bring up any additional passages in question that I may have missed. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to harp on the old/original text. That was NOT the more recent text, which I had added back, and which you immediately reverted (twice) because you did not agree (under the guise of one-man "consensus", but I digress). I entirely omitted the bulleted statement about Karaoke, added "As of 2004," to the worldwide popularity statement, and included two (2) additional citations for those two short final paragraphs. I also reworded the "Decline" section to much more accurately reflect the facts/citations about sales of VCD/DVD in China, but you reverted that, too. See this diff. Rcooley (talk 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I give permission for all to harp away :-) I'm having some difficulty determining what the problem with the article is. Can I get a summary from you, too? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooley - I was giving original context to help the mediator understand. The ongoing dialog is on this page, and I mentioned suggested changes on the mediation page. It would be mighty difficult for us get where we are going without knowing where we are coming from. I know you made changes, and I know I reverted them. You added

"However, VCD has simultaneously seen significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD. As of 2004, the worldwide popularity of VCD is actually increasing."

But that largely just redressed the previous wording. I suggested

"In 2003, VCD use saw significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD."

That statement is supported. I also agree based on previously provided sources in discussion that there was an increase in usage of VCD in some areas (Asia Pacific) in 2003. However that doesn't translate to "worldwide popularity increasing" The wording of your statement implies that there is also a continued rise in popularity, when no sources post 2004 are provided to support it. We can't allude to continued popularity if there are no sources to support that 2008 still is seeing an increase in VCD use. Regarding the re-addition of "VCD does have a few advantages over DVD-Video" Bullet 1 is not sourced, I also stated DVD's support region encoding but it is by no means a requirement. I acknowledge VCDs do not have region coding, but "Many VCD players can compensate for the differing frame rate and pixel count between NTSC and PAL/SECAM TV systems" is not an advantage when many consumer DVD players can do the same. Bullet 2 has a source that leads to a general FAQ with no supporting information or examples of which movies aren't available on DVD. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded by your comments once again... You admitted to the increasing worldwide popularity several times on this talk page ("I think we've established there was growth in 2003" and "There was growth in 2003. I agree with that,"), not just "certain areas", and were merely arguing whether it is true "in the present time frame" until now, so I addressed that (i.e. adding "As of 2004,") when I recently edited the page.

The statements of worldwide popularity are fully supported by the citations: eg. "70 million VCD players were sold worldwide." and "Surveys showed that the entire VCD products market recorded more than 40 per cent growth"

The "availability" bullet is supported by the same source as "region-free". A shame you didn't bother to read it.

Region free is a VCD advantage. Modifiers need not apply. DVDs aren't forced to use region codes, but they DO (99.9% of the time) and even if they rarely did, it would still be an advantage, plain and simple. All things I've said before, of course... Rcooley (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding comment posted after stating resolution I said. "I think it's fair to say VCD installed userbase the Asia Pacific maintained in 2003, with a small percentage increase. I think we've established there was growth in 2003." Can you stop quibbling PAY ATTENTION? The markets where there is penetration there was growth in 2003. You can't say there is significant growth after that, that information isn't supported. I don't really appreciate your demeanor here - this is partly why I sought mediation. You put your statement for resolution below, yet you come out with a comment like this at the same time. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I quoted from two sources, and referred to a third, and you've utterly and completely ignored them. I could scarcely have come up with a more telling example of what this "conflict" is all about. Rcooley (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly... First AtaruMoroboshi removed the bulleted text of VCD's "advantages over DVD" (ie. region-free, availability, and Karaoke) without discussion, without tagging the content, and with a vague edit summary (i.e. "wp:OR and wp:peacock"). [7] I posted to his talk page, asking him to come here and clarify/discuss. He did. He did not dispute the fact that VCD lacks region coding, simply arguing it was a "minimal mitigating factor". He said the availability issue had "No attribution or sources." I quickly provided a citation for both, but he still objected. He suggested a table for comparison of the two formats instead. I asked what how a table would be less objectionable than a list with the same info, and what else he intended to include, and he linked to a couple tables, elsewhere on WP. This discussion ended.

Immediately after posting his first commenting on the text removal, he removed the second (cited) paragraph, about worldwide VCD adoption, [8] saying (just) the final sentence (of the paragraph he removed) was objectionable, since the cited source included "no metrics", their "VCD product line" was gone and the cited source was 5 years old (it's barely over 4 years old, actually). I pointed to the worldwide sales figure of "70 million" as a clear metric, pointed out that sales of one company's product line isn't relevant," and suggested the last sentence be reworded to reflect the year of the source: 2004. I explained that (newer) sources on VCD are difficult to find, and I tried to explain WP policies on disputed material, suggesting he should have tagged and/or discussed the material before removal. He accused me of ownership, and (later) asked me to "refrain" from "accusatory statements" against him. He complained again about the 6 year old source (still actually 4 years old). He suggested adding back the statement, mentioning popularity in "India, Indonesia, South America, etc" but entirely omitting world wide popularity. Why he finds a 4, 5, or 6 year-old (it gets older every time he mentions it) citation is fine for those countries, but not overall sales/the rest of the world, is beyond me.

I provided a link to an additional (older) ESSTech source to show a trend, and User:202.7.183.131 linked to an independent source which also supported the fact that player sales rose over the year 2003. User:AtaruMoroboshi agreed, and offered no argument, but again suggested leaving the sentence on "worldwide popularity" out entirely. At this point, it was more than two weeks since the text removal, the article included information only on the "decline" of VCD (no advantages listed at all), I re-added the old text, with additional citations, and some changes for to very directly reflect the 3 citations, and reworded the "decline" section to be more accurate. [9] User:AtaruMoroboshi reverted the change, claiming "Consensus has not been reached" (with no mention of factual accuracy, or the like). I reverted his reversion, saying "All additions are well-supported facts." He reverted yet again. I refrained, letting him have the last word so to speak (perhaps I should not, but here we are), as the mediation began. That is everything significant that has happened thus far. I hope this clears things up. Rcooley (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, an editor dispute! My favorite :-) Ataru wants unsubstantiated claims removed, and Rcooley wants substantiated claims readded. I think I see the problem ;-)

Comment The source was published in 2004 and utilizes data from the year 2003. In a previous comment I stated "Almost six years." - I was speaking in generalities, and I apologize if you seem to think I'm intentionally "aging" documents to support my argument. I'm not. But OK, now the mediator has a better understanding of what has transpired from two separate vantage points. Hopefully we can move forward now. :-) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is best for the article? Invisible barnstars to whoever answers that question without mentioning the other guy :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe unsupported information should be kept on talk page until if/when it is sourced. Reintroduce reworded statements based on the sources without conjecture of current popularity of VCD's, and a Table comparing the specifications of VCD vs DVD which removes the need for any additional synthesis by editors. (features are either supported or they aren't). It should no longer be a section that says "A is better than B". Which is a little Original Research-y AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

K, table sounds good. Here's your invisible barnstar:

(Yeah, it was a silly idea, so sue me :-p) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I believe supported facts should NOT be removed, unless a newer or otherwise conflicting source is found. (A dated statement ("As of 2004") supported by a citation is not "conjecture".) Facts should not be indiscriminately removed (indefinitely), while waiting for someone to improve the phrasing or layout. "Consensus" should not be used to justify this kind of editing, nor as a baseball bat to push a POV, and prevent improvements to the current text. Rcooley (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rcooley won't be getting his invisible barn-star -_-, I responded to your above comment. I have no POV as you claim other than, there is information that lacks sourcing, and shouldn't be in the article. Please, work with me here, because I'm making concessions - and I agree that there are good sources that support portions of the statements that you want to put back into the article. Accusing me of "using a baseball bat to prevent improvement" is an unfounded statement. If you stuanchly believe you and only you are correct, this is never going to be resolved. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was giving him a barnstar before an edit-conflict :-/

Well, that fell through. Anyway, if we're making concessions, then let Rcooley can re-add the text he wants. If the edit is wrong somehow, revert it and bring it here. Then we can discuss the edit made and not the editor, as is so often the case. You can read through BOLD, revert discuss to get the general idea. If anything, it helps me gain focus and do this on an edit-by-edit basis. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Before he or I adds any additional information I'd like to write out here exactly what will go back into the article. I've made concessions, but I'm not simply going to let it drop. I'd like a compromise. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We might get stuck in a discussion loop, instead of focusing on the article. But I think this is fair, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving back over to the left. 1) Rcooley do you agree to the creation of a table? If so we can discuss the criteria it should have 2) Would you support the inclusion of the following sentence back into the article. "In 2003, VCD use saw significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD. There was also growth in markets with existing peneration."? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Of course, as long as the table doesn't take several more weeks to put together. 2) Still no. It was not some fluke in 2003, it was also in 2001, 2002, and at least thru 2003. It was not selected areas, the citations discuss worldwide popularity. Is there some reason you refuse to read them? I've quoted them repeatedly. Rcooley (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy solution to #2: attribute the source in text. Tables aren't hard :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I like to adhere to There is not deadline(this is not policy but guideline), I'd rather not rush do to an arbitrary timelimit. 2)Point taken. What if we changed "IN 2003" to "In the early 2000's." I haven't refused to read anything. For clarities sake please post the link one more time down here, and I will re-read and comment. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1) If it's going to take a substantial length of time, the original "advantages" section should be restored, until your improved table is available to replace it. A one-sided article for 2 weeks+ is bad enough.

2) "early 2000's" sounds... awkward. The sources are [10] and [11] . (Sorry, also the older PDF [12]) Rcooley (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your suggestion to #2 then? No date? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that this information is valid for the year 2003 and prior - we can't simply say "there is growth" as it implies that in 2008 there is continued growth. No sources presented here support the claim there is growth now. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My (reverted) wording was "As of 2004," Rcooley (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, so: "As of 2004, VCD use saw significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD."... and then what for the world? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah edit conflict. On number 2) Given the document supports 2003 data, but was published in 2004. It's likely these are fiscal years not calender years so, I will concede to 2004. Suggested rewording given the sources which note worldwide sales -

"In 2004, and prior, VCD use saw significant new growth in emerging economies like India, Indonesia, South America, Russia and Africa as a low-cost alternative to DVD. There was also growth worldwide markets with existing penetration."

I think this adequately addresses worldwide use, growth of use, while avoiding making unsupported claims AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your source for the statement that VCD growth was only in "markets with existing penetration"? Also, the statement really needs to fit in with the previous paragraph better, which is why it started with "simultaneously..." "new growth". (I'd like to be able to suggest something better, but I don't have a lot of time right now.) Rcooley (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribute the source to the text; ESS says worldwide penetration, not existing penetration. Best compromise I can think up at the moment :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the sneaking suspicion this won't work? Or has everyone gone away? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still here, and thank you for your suggestions. I would first like to get Ataru's response, though. Since it is the weekend, I don't mind waiting a couple days for him to reply. After all, if we agree on "worldwide penetration," it's going to sound almost exactly like my previous addition [13] mentioning "worldwide popularity." Rcooley (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

K, just checkin' :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I haven't forgot about this. I hope to have some time tomorrow to continue the discussion. Thanks for understanding. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be available for a quite a while. Rcooley (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Pulling together some additional sources for the article. Please add to the list.

Historical:

• New York Times article 1993 [14]

Recent articles: So far what I've found are passing references to Video CD, they do not explicitly establish any growth in use. The more stand reinforce ubiquity of the format in certain regions.

• International Herald Tribune article, passing mention of Thai PM distributing a message on Video CDs - [15], more on that [16]
• A passing reference to Video CD as medium to submit video evidence, 2008. [17]
• Press release from "The Radio and TV Advertising Practitioners Association of India" Awards 2007. Submissions were being accepted on Video CD [18]

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation needed for recent fact/cn Tags

It's not clear what the latest round of fact/cn tags refer to. The two in question are in the XVCD section, at the end of a couple sentences/paragraphs about VBR. [19] Are the tags to request proof that XVCDs usually use VBR, or a more fundamental question, about how VBR works, and/or it's advantages over CBR? Or perhaps something else entirely? Rcooley (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Overburn link

The description of DVCD links to overburn but overburn redirects to dvd authoring. Please make it link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overburn#Overburning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.42.189 (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

VCDs adoption in Europe

I live in Sweden (northern Europe), and I must say that, until I noticed that VCDs were on sale in various Asian countries, I had no idea that there is such things as stand-alone VCD players and official VCDs. I'm fairly well traveled by Swedish standards; I've been in over 30 countries on 3 continents. However, the majority of them are European countries, and I've never noticed anything hinting that the VCD technology has been widespread or popular, or even existent. And I would know; one of the things we did back in the days before broadband connections were common was buying movies on VHS that had yet to be released in Sweden. Yet in this article it is written that VCD is/was common in Europe? The source listed is a Q&A section in the New York Times, where Europe is briefly mentioned. Nothing bad about Times, but... This wouldn't really be the first time an American source says "this obsolete technology is used somewhere way over there in Europe/Asia, but not here". Are there any more reliable (that is, European) sources for this? --Konaya (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Europe and have worked in the Consumer Electronics industry (dealing with such formats and products as VCD and DVD) in Europe as well as Singapore and although I have no sources at hand to back this up I can confirm from first-hand experience that VCD has not been successful in Europe. It's installed base has been heavily skewed to Asia. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more of a 'terms' issue than a factual issue. It was (and to a lesser extent, still is) popular in the former Soviet nations. Which some international organizations consider to be Europe and some consider to be Asia. No? Lostinlodos (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Finland, lived in the mediterrenian region for a few years. My only ever encounter with a VCD drive was 2004 in Cyprus were I saw a single drive in a home occupied by Persian imigrants, I suggest a little modification to the text. Dvortex (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree I have never seen a VCD player in either United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland I did know some people who used the 12 inch laser discs well up to the late 80's though81.99.1.148 (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Cscarlet

These anecdotes are all quite interesting, but not really proof of anything. You can't say VCD wasn't somewhat popular in Europe, unless you were everywhere on the continent, across the entire decade time-frame. There are, no doubt, many things that are "popular" in my country (never mind the rest of the continent) that I remain completely unaware of... That's why WP requires sources, rather than testimonials from users. If you dig back in the article history more than a year ago, you'll see that somebody else here added that mention of VCD in Europe, long before I arrived here, and found that NYTimes Q&A, so it's not only that cite... Of course if anyone can find some source that directly contradicts the NYT, it should then be removed. But a few personal experiences just aren't strong enough proof. Rcooley (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Best model?

The Malata VDR-R1 SVCD MPEG 2 recorded 80mins no other unit did! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitwikis (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information!

The article says:

KVCD (K Video Compression Dynamics) is a XVCD variant that requires the use of a proprietary quantization matrix, available for non-commercial use. KVCD is notable because the specification recommends a non-standard resolution of 528x480 or 528x576. KVCD discs encoded at this resolution are only playable by computers with CD-ROM drives, and a small number of DVD players.

FWIW, quantization matrices are NOT a "copyrightable" thing; the inventor of the name KVCD claims otherwise, but that's irrelevant.

Also, the quantity of standalone DVD-players that support non-standard video resolutions is far greater than the "few" models documented in Europe and in North America; for example, the list available at KVCD.net does not mention any model from LG, which makes it an unreliable source. --- KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.100.222.98 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Information is horribly out of date

The most recent referenced material dates from 2008 regarding Burma but the vast majority of the information with regarding usage and tends dates form earlier and is likely hopelessly out of date. Even when the format war was raging $1 DVD was common and now that Blu-ray has emerged DVD is in freefall: a 100 blank CD is $16.99 on amazon while 100 blank 16X DVDs are $19.99. Certainly this price drop much have some effect on VCD in the Asian markets.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet you can purchase brand new, just manufactured VCDs/SVCDs from Celestial, Tartan, HKD, et al. In downfall and limited interest don't equate to disappearance or obsolescence. They're still popular with their target audience. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can supposedly still buy "new" Laserdisk players (Pioneer Japan still offers a DVD/LD combo player for example) so you can argue that the Laserdisk is "still popular with their target audience" as is the Dreamcast (because people still make games for it and Saga itself was still selling units as late as 2006). But the target audience in those examples is a very small nitch hobby market not a general consumer market. Also remember that some of those Celestial, Tartan, HKD, et al players are actually DVD/VCD or even DVD/VCD/CD/MP3 players. I don't see this as an argument against what is logically going on in 2010.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix was the last LD that I'm aware of that came out, so did all 6 Star Wars Films, and all but the most recent Star Trek movies. But that's besides the point.
Those "players" I mentioned are NOT players, they're film distributors, with current, recent films coming out.
Celestial is one of the largest pan-Asian releasing companies, owning the rights to the vast majority of the Shaw library. With that example, they didn't START releasing Shaw films until 1998, and the most recent VCDs from them came out in November 2009, Return to the 36th Chamber, and Amorous Lotus Pan.
Tartan just re-released the remastered Vengeance Trilogy on 9 SVCDs in February 2010. Their releasing schedule for VCD is not nearly as broad as for DVD and CH-DVD but they've averaged 12+ per year since 2002
HKD has released Forbidden Kingdom and Jade Rickshaw Assassins most recently, both in January. Just for a start on current support.
Limited; localized, even selective all fit, but niche doesn't. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that that the whole High definition optical disc format war didn't formally end until 2008 keeping DVD in the limelight as the "standard" high quality format (and therefore still demanding a premium in many markets). Also given how prevalent VCD players were recently it only makes sense that companies would still make things in that format. Remember that the statement was that VCD was growing. A 2001 article called "Low DVD Prices to Drive up Unit Sales" had DVD players projected to hit 800 yuan (US$97) in October of that year. "Experts estimate the DVD player market will become a 100 billion yuan (US$12 billion) industry in China by 2003. [...] The total output value for all of China's VCD manufacturers is now only about 20 billion yuan (US$2.4 billion)." Also the 2004 "ESS product to vie with VCD players" article (the latest one cited on VCD growing) stated "Currently, a VCD player costs 200 to 300 yuan (US$24.20 to US$36.20) in China." but a DVD player in the US goes for as low as $26 in 2010. Given all this I really can't see the VCD market growing as is implied by the article as it stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is really pointless... Why waste your time here, stating the obvious? If you have newer sources, or can find some, please do! If you don't or can't, put the tag at the top of the article and HOPE somebody will eventually fix it for you. Without sources, we don't actually know if VCD has declined or increased around the world, and if so, what the concrete figures are. We've gone over this before, back when the citations were only a bit out-of-date, and it was a miserable waste of time for all involved, which simply resulted in it getting more out of date as I got tired of the WP conflicts and idiotic policies, and stopped all work on it all together. Rcooley (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated

The information is outdated and definitely needs major editing.

See more video cd at American Recordable Media

Jvwhite456 (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You just linked to a sales site. If there is some kind of relevant material there please link directly.Lostinlodos (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

actually it's quite a good article

Perhaps not so technical as to be as unintelligible to the avg reader as some might wish, to someone who is quite familiar with VCDs and how they've been used, I find it quite a good article, and refreshingly so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.247.45 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What kind of file?

When you put a VCD in you computer, what are the video files called?

.mpg, .avi, etc. ?

71.58.198.190 (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

They are .DAT files, but contain mpeg format data. 109.152.148.89 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

VCDs and Consoles

It should be noted that most of the consoles listed as being able to play VCDs can't, specifically the PlayStation. There is only one model of PlayStation that can play VCDs natively, the rest require an addon. The PlayStation 2 and Xbox can't play them at all. The Dreamcast requires third party software. It should be noted though that the 3DO can play VCDs with the MPEG decoder addon, much like the original PlayStation.

Source on PS2: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004ABz For Xbox: http://www.emutalk.net/archive/index.php/t-10412.html (Does mention 3rd party software.)Kasm279 (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Video CD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625232554/http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-21/h5.html to http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-21/h5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071108160634/http://www.chiariglione.org//mpeg/meetings/london/london_press.htm to http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/meetings/london/london_press.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070826064200/http://www.ip.philips.com:80/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_videocdplayer_joint.html to http://www.ip.philips.com/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_videocdplayer_joint.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080930073157/http://www.ip.philips.com:80/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_videocddisc_joint.html to http://www.ip.philips.com/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_videocddisc_joint.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Factual issues with history section

The history section states "VCD enjoyed a brief period of success..." and while this might be true in North America and Europe, it is not true in Asia. Everything I have read says that it enjoyed immense popularity in Asia, partly due to the more robust nature of the VCD players (vs VHS) in Asian tropical climates and pertly due to the inexpensiveness of VCD Players and discs vs VHS or even the later DVD format. While it's true that Hollywood studios largely refused to release movies on the format, especially outside of Asia, due to it's unencrypted nature, there where licensed/legal movies and TV shows released on the format in Asian countries, especially local Asian productions made by local studios and TV networks. There was also an extensive library of pirated content made available via VCD So while it's may very well be true that "the introduction of CD-R disc and associated recorders stopped the release of feature films in their tracks", that's only really true AFAIK for Hollywood films/TV shows and only for legally licensed/distributed content. CD Burners/CD-R's likely helped the market for pirated VCD movies/TV Shows. We really need to seek out reliable sources, whether in English or in Chinese/Japanese/Korean, Vietnamese, etc. as to the history of the VCD in Asian Countries vs North America and Europe. I believe several key statements made in the history section about VCD adoption/lack there of can be verified and thus should remain but they need to be reworded to clarify they apply only to North America and European markets, not Asia. A statement at the end of the section does state that "VCDs made considerable inroads into developing nations" but this contradicted in a previous paragraph that implies they did not. Remember that even if you disagree with the proliferation of pirated content on VCD, if such content is easily available and popular in a country then the format is popular even if it's not popular for distributing legal content in those same countries. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

-Several Hollywood studios licensed films to be produced on Video CD in the US and Europe from 1993 until 1996. It was a niche product that only played on expensive video game consoles and computers with high processing speed or an mpeg decoder card. Once the DVD Consortium decided on the standards of DVD in late 1996, Philips, DDE, Live Ent, Polygram, Vision and other Video CD publishers stopped releasing Video CD in the West. It wasn't over the pirating issue. It was because continuing to produce Video CDs would compete with the launch of DVD in the US. The VCD boom in Asia didn't start until a few years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:2540:8549:6C7:A1C5:AF58 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

list of VCD burner software

There is a list of VCD playback software, but can we get a list of VCD burning software? A lot of CD and DVD burning applications do not support burning VCDs. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

From "Comparison of disc authoring software#Standards support" and "Cdrtools#Software that can use cdrtools," DeepBurner, k3b, Nero Burning ROM, Brasero, InfraRecorder, X-CD-Roast, and CDRFTE may have VCD burning support, but I haven't tested all of these applications myself to confirm. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Not in the USA

I'm not surprised that the Video CD wasn't even released in North America. Think it was too much in the 90s? --Rod14 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)