Which Mpeg2 soft encoder

[srfscenar]

Hi all! I wanna buy a software mpeg 2 encoder. Till now i have tried CCE and Procoder. By my amateur tests i saw that Procoder has better results...please correct me if i am wrong and suggest me a software encoder. My needs are for best quality. Rendering time is not an issue.
Thanx!

[dbloom]

:readrule:

Forum rules disallow "what is the best..."-type questions. You just have to find out for yourself.

That said, I would start out with the free encoders, such as HC and QuEnc, as well as the inexpensive TMPGEnc. Their quality rivals the expensive professional-grade encoders, they just encode a little slower.

[Trixter]

Procoder's "mastering" quality level does some chroma filtering and other tricks to get the noise down -- it may or may not be what you want.

I'm creating a 3-hour DVD for sale and CCE far and away produced the best results with my footage.

So start with HC and QuEnc as previously suggested, then try TMPGEnc, CCE Basic, and Procoder Express (I think that's the name) if the free encoders don't have the level of quality/features you want.

[srfscenar]

Thanx guys, and sorry for the "what is best..." thing.

[shirohamada]

HC and Qu
by far QuEnc is all i use.
tmpg is slow, and not any better than the free ones.
FreeEnc.

[pandy]

tmpg is slow, and not any better than the free ones.
FreeEnc.

Hm i think that tmpegenc is one of the best mpeg-2 encoder due of possibility edit by a hand a GOP structure. But i agree that for many tasks (ie DVD material preparing) free encoders are quite good.

[Awatef]

CCE is actually well known as being the Ferrari under all MPEG-2 encoders, be it speed-wise or quality-wise ;)
I would recommend the Basic version which is totally sufficient for consumer needs and doesn't cost much (58US$)
http://www.cinemacraft.com/eng/basic.html

What CCE lacks is Dolby Digital (AC3) encoding. As you may know, this can be done with freeware tools like BeSweet.

[dbloom]

CCE certainly wins the "quality per unit of encode time" category; however, I think that there is a conensus that, given unlimited encode time, all of the major MPEG-2 encoders (including everything from CCE to the free ones) can make equally high-quality output. It all comes down to personal preference to decide which is best for you and your needs...and, yes, how much you want to pay.

[Awatef]

Actually, CCE outperforms all others even with "unlimited encoding time".
If you found ProCoder to perform better, you probably did something wrong in CCE.

[dbloom]

Awatef: If you have a side-by-side encoder comparison from an unbiased source to back your opinion up, feel free to produce it. Otherwise, feel free to share your opinions in this thread, but don't present them as facts.

No encoder is officially "best" - that is why forum rules prevent that kind of discussion (and/or flamewar).

[Awatef]

It's not my opinion, there are specialized magazines out there, if you find one, that tells you, XYZ is better than CCE, please be so kind and point us to it.
Until then, I'll have to rely on the magazines I read, and CCE always comes out as number one, at least when it comes to MPEG-2 encoding.

[dbloom]

It's not my opinion, there are specialized magazines out there, if you find one, that tells you, XYZ is better than CCE, please be so kind and point us to it.
Until then, I'll have to rely on the magazines I read, and CCE always comes out as number one, at least when it comes to MPEG-2 encoding.

Fair enough. Can you give a link to the article in one of those magazines that says CCE has better output quality than TMPGEnc, Procoder, HC, etc...?

I understand that CCE usually wins magazine reviews, but it is not usually due to output *quality*; instead, it usually wins because it is fast and easy to configure for compliant output.

(Also, just for the record, I am *not* trying to say that any encoder has better output quality than CCE. I simply believe that CCE is generally no better or worse than TMPGEnc/HC/etc with regard to output quality).

[Awatef]

There are several articles on the net. For example, videohelp.com did a comparison, and it came out that TMPG and CCE had almost equal quality, but CCE had less blockiness. All others were not up to the match. I also saw other comparisons where CCE and TMPG came out first, with a slight advantage for CCE.

The german CHIP magazine had a comparison some time ago, where CCE also came up first. TMPG's MPEG-2 capabilities were rated worse than CCE due to more noise and blockiness. But TMPG was rated the better encoder when it comes to MPEG-1 and MP2 encoding.
At the end, they recommended using both programs, CCE for MPEG-2, and TMPG for everything else, and that's what I do :D

[Blue_MiSfit]

CCE is really fantastic..

It's fast, customizable, and has great output.

The basic version is also really cheap, and should be more than enough for the average MPEG-2 jobs.

I agree that TMPGenc is a better choice for MPEG-1, and for handling audio, but hey whaddaya want, we're talking about MPEG-2 encoders :)

~MiSfit

[Trixter]

TMPG's MPEG-2 capabilities were rated worse than CCE due to more noise and blockiness. But TMPG was rated the better encoder when it comes to MPEG-1 and MP2 encoding.
At the end, they recommended using both programs, CCE for MPEG-2, and TMPG for everything else, and that's what I do :D

That's pretty much been my experience as well. CCE isn't quite as good when it comes to MPEG-1, especially on full-screen fades to/from black. But it rox almighty for any MPEG-2 target.

[dragongodz]

It's not my opinion, there are specialized magazines out there, if you find one, that tells you, XYZ is better than CCE, please be so kind and point us to it.
obviously it IS your opinion, even if its just to believe what you have read in some magazine.

these are a bit old now but will show you something.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=89559
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=91405

i am sure there was another one aswell, maybe it was somewhere else, that was done as a blind test. in that there was a mix of votes for the different encoders used and CCE did not have it all to itself.

so PLEASE no more CCE is king or the best thing since sliced bread. if you prefer its output then fine but dont start telling others that everything else is second compared to it as if its fact.

[Awatef]

@ dragongodz
If the articles I read said TMPG (or any other encoder) is the best I wouldn't even care about CCE!
What I wanna say is: I'm really not an expert to go ahead and tell people, this one is good, this one is bad, I have NO IDEA!
I just happened to test CCE and found it to meet to my expectations of a test winner!
And I think I already mentionned the fields where CCE is not recommended so...
It's not my problem if YOU don't wanna follow the recommendations of professional testers.

[dragongodz]

If the articles I read said TMPG (or any other encoder) is the best I wouldn't even care about CCE!
and theres half your problem. you are ready to believe something written in a magazine without testing it yourself or believing others have a different opinion.

And I think I already mentionned the fields where CCE is not recommended so..
you mean when you said ?
CCE is actually well known as being the Ferrari under all MPEG-2 encoders, be it speed-wise or quality-wise
well nobody has questioned how fast it is, however quality is a totaly different, subjective, matter.

It's not my problem if YOU don't wanna follow the recommendations of professional testers.
HAHAHA oh please. "profesional testers" hmmm ? where do i sign up for that degree ? all they are is hired staff. their eyes are no better than anyone elses. all they are giving is their OPINION. its NOT a fact that all CCE encodes look better to everybody.

i have already given you 2 threads showing tests done where CCE didnt come out best always. if you dont want to believe evidence that others may prefer the output from a different encoder thats up to you. i sure wont bother wasting my time further.

[Awatef]

i sure wont bother wasting my time further.

Same here :p

[Sharktooth]

I agree with dragongodz.
If you're happy with CCE then, good for you.
That's your personal opinion by a non-expert (per your ammission).
Also, free softwares are sometimes better than commercial ones (see xvid, x264, lame... to name a few) and, IMHO, HC and QuEnc are better than CCE...
so, my suggestion to the first poster is: Try the free encoder first and if you're not satisfied, switch to commercial sofware but dont expect too much...

[rahzel]

i'm also with dragongodz...

i think this is the reason why asking "whats best" is prohibited here...

i think i read the article at videohelp.com you speak of, but if it is the one im thinking of, it is VERY old. imo, CCE hasnt really changed much as far as quality the past few years while other encoders (free encoders in particular) have really improved.

i know with DVD-RB, MANY people prefer other encoders. it is not a FACT that CCE is the best.

and btw, CCE is my favorite encoder (for now). i will probably always use CCE for avi to MPEG2 conversions because of its speed, but with DVD-RB, i'm starting to like HC encoder in certain situations. you can also enable multiple instances in RB so it takes roughly the same time CCE takes.

[DDogg]

Frankly, it is still amazing to me that we have free alternatives that are so good this discussion topic can exist.

Very cool to be able to compare community gpl alternatives to a commercial product that has been in continual development since, what, the 1990's? The quality is so close now that it nearly comes down to how individual eyeballs work. Angels on a pin head. Our community is damn lucky to have the talent to accomplish this.

Speed versus yielded quality is now the thing that sets the various programs apart and even that is not a big deal with today's multicore machines.

[Heini011]

hi, i'am with Sharktooth...

for the purpose of reencoding well denoised dvd sources with high bitrates i prefer hc encoder (QuEnc not tested) over cce:

- CCE doesn't support yv12 colorspace, so a lossy conversion will be needed
- CCE seems to add dither noise, even if i tell not to do this
- CCE filesize doesn't match the target exactly, some trials needed

- HC Enc quality seems to be more constant and less noisy
- HC is faster: only 2 passes needed and fairly accurate target size hit
- custom matrix transitions are easier in HC

HC downside: no zones (for credits..)

greetings.

[hank315]

HC downside: no zones (for credits..)
That one is already on my todo list for some time.
Will probably be in the next release.

[foxyshadis]

- CCE filesize doesn't match the target exactly, some trials needed

This is the #1 reason CCE has no speed advantages over other encoders in 2-pass mode. Some people are comfortable with 9-pass (????) but even the more typical and sane 4-pass is slower than HC's or Quenc's 2-pass.

[FulciLives]

I just wanted to say that in the early days I used TMPGEnc Plus then switched to CCE which I've been using for ages (usually doing a 3 - 5 pass VBR) and only recently decided to test HCenc and I was most impressed. Quality is every bit as good as CCE as far as I can tell.

I did try QuEnc a few months ago but I was not happy with the quality (saw too many macroblocks on fast motion).

Not sure it's worth much but I wanted to add my 2 cents :D

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[kumi]

My preference for situations when CCE or HC start to sweat is ProCoder 2. I find it very reliable with both interlaced and progressive sources.

In this arbitrary, non-scientific, silly comparison I did, ProCoder handily beats CCE and HC. HC version used was 0.17, it'd be interesting to see how it has improved since then:

http://rapidshare.com/files/3223505/HC_-_v01001800001002.mkv.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/3223506/CCE_-_V01001800001002.mkv.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/3223507/Procoder2_-_V01001800001002.mkv.html

Maybe someday I'll try QuEnc...

[Mug Funky]

i don't have procoder (tried it years ago and wasn't impressed, but it appears to be good now).

however, i tend to go HC for limited max bitrate and max compliancy, CCE for speed and higher bitrate, and Quenc for 2-pass, where it pretty much wins, at least with the material i use most.

HC is very good, there's just a couple of things that prevent me using it more:

- though it's a terrifically fast encoder, when it's riding the max bitrate it's extremely slow.
- it's GOP based max rate control can cause whole GOPs to be very blocky when just a couple of frames would do (and be far less noticable, if at all).

i'd use quenc more if it's interlaced mode were as fast as it's progressive mode (instead of around 2/3 of it). also if it's 1-pass mode didn't bitrate spike on the boundary between calm and noisy scenes.

i'd use CCE more if it could maintain a consistent GOP structure and didn't produce terrible artefacts on small moving objects in no-motion scenes. i haven't figured out why it does this, but no number of passes fixes it. of course it's only a 1-in-50 clip occurence, but that still is too much.

that said, they're all very good encoders and i don't think i could choose a clear favourite (i'd lean toward quenc probably)

[Trixter]

My preference for situations when CCE or HC start to sweat is ProCoder 2.

I'm assuming you're talking about Mastering Quality, right? You need to be careful with Mastering Quality, as it turns on some sort of chroma blend/denoising that may not exactly be what you want. For most real-world footage, it's great, but I had some chroma-heavy computer-generated footage that it absolutely murdered.

Not trying to discourage you, just thought you should know.

[kumi]

Some good information in this thread.

@Trixter: Interesting, do you know if it's restricted to the chroma plane? Thankfully I never encode anything really chroma-heavy, just low motion art film stuff. Something to keep an eye out for though.

@Mug Funky: Can I ask what sort of material you use most?

[techmule]

I'm assuming you're talking about Mastering Quality, right? You need to be careful with Mastering Quality, as it turns on some sort of chroma blend/denoising that may not exactly be what you want. For most real-world footage, it's great, but I had some chroma-heavy computer-generated footage that it absolutely murdered.

Not trying to discourage you, just thought you should know.


What about DVD sources, like with DVD-RB, I guess mastering mode is meant to give DVD like output.

And arent we missing one more good encoder AUTOQmatenc by SAPSTAR from these discussions.

[Trixter]

@Trixter: Interesting, do you know if it's restricted to the chroma plane? Thankfully I never encode anything really chroma-heavy, just low motion art film stuff. Something to keep an eye out for though.


You know, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I ever did any specific tests to see if luma was affected. But at least the chroma blurring was obvious because I had some 2-color silouette animation with very sharp edges that was quite mangled after Mastering Quality was turned on. (On "High" quality it was fine, but Procoder's High Quality wasn't as good as CCE with my footage.)

[Mug Funky]

@ kumi:

i work with all video... you name it, i encode it. i wouldn't choose one encoder over another for a particular source (with the possible exception of CCE - it can behave oddly on some stuff), but more depending on the destination, ie bitrate range, multiangle or not, max rate constraints.

[manolito]

however, i tend to go HC for limited max bitrate and max compliancy, CCE for speed and higher bitrate, and Quenc for 2-pass, where it pretty much wins, at least with the material i use most.

i'd use quenc more if it's interlaced mode were as fast as it's progressive mode (instead of around 2/3 of it). also if it's 1-pass mode didn't bitrate spike on the boundary between calm and noisy scenes.

i'd use CCE more if it could maintain a consistent GOP structure and didn't produce terrible artefacts on small moving objects in no-motion scenes. i haven't figured out why it does this, but no number of passes fixes it. of course it's only a 1-in-50 clip occurence, but that still is too much.

that said, they're all very good encoders and i don't think i could choose a clear favourite (i'd lean toward quenc probably)
Finally, some clear words (other than: "just use whatever works best for you") from someone who knows what he is talking about :)

Just a few questions:
To remedy the bitrate spikes in QuEnc's one pass VBR mode, does disabling scene change detection help? Is it even recommended to turn it off for 2-pass VBR? I do remember a remark by DGZ (long time ago) that QuEnc's scene change detection threshold is too low making it insert way too many I-frames.

What do you think about QuEnc's HQ option? Is it useful only for low bitrates, or does it help to improve quality in general? The reason I'm asking is that I could never tell where HQ really made a visible difference. But then my standard CRT TV set is very forgiving...

And one last question about CCE: Does your remark that it can behave oddly on some stuff apply to all versions of CCE, or are some versions better behaved than others? I still use CCE 2.50 simply because it is significantly faster on my (old and slow) machine than later versions. Is it worth upgrading to a more recent version?

Cheers
manolito

[Mug Funky]

@ manolito:

on the HQ switch - i really haven't played with it much. my encodes are set up via batch files, so all i do is enter bitrates, AR, interlaced or not, and number of passes. matrix is determined by the bitrate i enter (and is scaled by about 15% when interlaced is selected), and HQ is just left on along with closed GOP and noscene.

2-pass ratecontrol doesn't appear to spike, and 1-pass currently only spikes when a calm scene with a small amount of motion (a still title card on slightly shaky film for instance) cuts to a scene with lots of texture and/or motion (like an outdoor scene shot from a chopper).

if you want a specific example, the first minute of "Paris, Texas" will show this problem.

on CCE's oddness: i use 2.67, haven't really played with the others. basically a near totally still scene with little to moderate detail and a small moving object. the moving object will be spoiled for several frames for no discernable reason. i've only seen it on interlaced mode, but that's not to say it doesn't happen on progressive stuff, just that i haven't seen it happen.

[kumi]

I'll speak to my experience with my usual fare: decent to excellent transfers of low-action films.

When dealing with low compression ratios, CCE suffers from more mosquitoing around high-contrast edges than HC, and it also tends to introduce noise which was not in the source. That's why I prefer HC in these cases.

However, if the compression and complexity is such that HC begins to introduce macroblocking, it's generally my experience that CCE will do a better job.

[DSP8000]

When dealing with low compression ratios, CCE suffers from more mosquitoing around high-contrast edges than HC, and it also tends to introduce noise which was not in the source. That's why I prefer HC in these cases.

That is my opinion as well.

I use Procoder express, HC & CCE basic.


Procoder Express for all my interlaced videos
HC for HQ DVD backups bitrate 3000~4000 AUTOQ2 matrix
CCE basic for Progressive videos


I do a lot of video editing for a video production house and HC does superb job for video over 2 1/2 hours.
I like HC a lot, tends to keep more detail than CCE without introducing mosquito noise.
I bought Procoder Express a long time ago & all I can say is this:does the job for me every time and very good.
HC & CCE basic interlaced mode IMO is not as good as Procoder.
The mentioned "smoothing" in Procoder sometimes is good for interlaced video, @ avg. 4000~5000 interlaced video "smoothed" by Procoder looks much better than HC or CCE basic.
i wouldn't choose one encoder over another for a particular source (with the possible exception of CCE - it can behave oddly on some stuff), but more depending on the destination, ie bitrate range, multiangle or not, max rate constraints.
I think that explains pretty much everything :)

DSP8000