PDA

View Full Version : Good mpeg encoder?


h3170ra
15th April 2007, 11:34
Hi guys,

I've used tmpegnc for encoding my video files into VCD, but I realized that the result is not sharp as the origin VCD. I've used the best quality master (my master film is from DVCAM or Betacam SP) so the problem is not from the master file. I've tested some mpeg encoder such as vegas, premiere, edius, etc, but still not statisfied with the result. Maybe someone in this forum can suggest me mpeg encoder that can make VCD that has quality like original VCD. Thanks a lot in advance

Best regards,

Hendra Hong

snherbst
15th April 2007, 14:11
Arcording to the forum rules there is nothing like the "best", but what suits me best or what looks better than.
I've only tried to convert to mpeg2(DVD) and I've got good results with Quenc. The speed in Quenc is more superior to what TMpegenc can achive.

xbox360
15th April 2007, 16:14
& ffmpeg is much better than Quenc & TMpegenc, most of all it's free !

snherbst
15th April 2007, 16:27
@Xbox360

What do you mean with better?
Both Quenc and FFmpeg use Libavcodec and proberly the latest one.
And please follow rule 12. Refer to better in your opinion.

xbox360
15th April 2007, 16:37
Better meaning it has a autodetect source file = more acurate encoding. Quenc dosent have autodetect.

snherbst
15th April 2007, 17:23
@xbox360

Ergo meaning better for you. Not necessary better for me.

Bigmango
15th April 2007, 18:06
You can safely say that all of the major encoders are good at higher bitrates.

Visual quality at medium bitrates is subjective, some prefer sharper and noisier pictures while others prefer smoother ones.

The most difficult is to retain good visual quality at low bitrates. So for me as I do a lot of medium-low bitrates encodings, after months of testing with various sources, the best encoder is the one that provides the best visual quality a low bitrates. And there is only 1: Procoder 2 using mastering quality.

Procoder 2 just works. There is no need to start a science project with settings and matrices every time you start an encode. It just works. Period. With CCE for example, to get quality at lower bitrates you need to learn the software, read wikies, search forums, try matrixes, etc... The result is that you waste hours.


Free encoders:

From the many posts on these forums and from the various user tests around the web you will see that HC enc seems to be the one with the better visual quality.

I don't know how ffmpeg is today, but when I tried it last year quality was very poor at lower bitrates.

Commercial encoders:

The 2 better encoders are CCE and Procoder 2. CCE (needs 3 pass) provides beautiful encodes at medium to higher bitrates. Procoder 2 shows that it's the better one with lower bitrates. And especially with animes, at low bitrates Procoder 2 is shining while CCE provides awful blocky pictures.

Mainconcept, tmpgenc and others are not contenders at lower bitrates.

Fishman0919
16th April 2007, 01:55
& ffmpeg is much better than Quenc & TMpegenc, most of all it's free !

What are you talking about. Since ffmpeg, QuEnc, NuEnc, AutoQMatEnc and others use the libavcodec library... saying ones better then the other is pretty foolish.

Better meaning it has a autodetect source file = more acurate encoding. Quenc dosent have autodetect.

Thats all determined by the avisynth script.... didn't dragongodz already have this discussion. If you don't like QuEnc then don't use it... but going around telling others it's not good because you preferred ffmpeg (which uses the same engine) is again foolish!

techreactor
16th April 2007, 06:04
You can safely say that all of the major encoders are good at higher bitrates.

Visual quality at medium bitrates is subjective, some prefer sharper and noisier pictures while others prefer smoother ones.

The most difficult is to retain good visual quality at low bitrates. So for me as I do a lot of medium-low bitrates encodings, after months of testing with various sources, the best encoder is the one that provides the best visual quality a low bitrates. And there is only 1: Procoder 2 using mastering quality.

Procoder 2 just works. There is no need to start a science project with settings and matrices every time you start an encode. It just works. Period. With CCE for example, to get quality at lower bitrates you need to learn the software, read wikies, search forums, try matrixes, etc... The result is that you waste hours.


Free encoders:

From the many posts on these forums and from the various user tests around the web you will see that HC enc seems to be the one with the better visual quality.

I don't know how ffmpeg is today, but when I tried it last year quality was very poor at lower bitrates.

Commercial encoders:

The 2 better encoders are CCE and Procoder 2. CCE (needs 3 pass) provides beautiful encodes at medium to higher bitrates. Procoder 2 shows that it's the better one with lower bitrates. And especially with animes, at low bitrates Procoder 2 is shining while CCE provides awful blocky pictures.

Mainconcept, tmpgenc and others are not contenders at lower bitrates.

Very well said Bigmango, but you might want to try HCenc 0.20 for low bitrates. I was surprised to see the results with avg BR nearing 2k.

dragongodz
16th April 2007, 07:24
Visual quality at medium bitrates is subjective
this is a good response.

So for me as I do a lot of medium-low bitrates encodings, after months of testing with various sources, the best encoder is the one that provides the best visual quality a low bitrates. And there is only 1: Procoder 2 using mastering quality.
to make that clear, Bigmango means for HIM there is only 1 choice. that is he has found what HE prefers. people should test and decide for themselves, especially considering there are many different types of footage etc.

Since ffmpeg, QuEnc, NuEnc, AutoQMatEnc and others use the libavcodec library... saying ones better then the other is pretty foolish.
well its true and not true. they all do use the same basic engine , so for example motion estimation is exactly the same no matter which you use. however they all do use different rate controls. so there can be a difference in the final output. :)

now i have saved the best for last. :devil:

it has a autodetect source file = more acurate encoding.
wow. thats got to be the most ridiculous statement i have seen in some time. so you are saying because ffmpeg knows the source file is say an mpeg2 it can encode it better ? thats the biggest load of B.S. i have ever heard. where do you get this stuff from ?

a little lesson on how things work, including ffmpeg.
sourcefile->decoder->decodedframes->encoder->outputfile
explain to me again how knowing what the source file is is going to make any difference again.

Fishman0919
16th April 2007, 12:07
well its true and not true. they all do use the same basic engine , so for example motion estimation is exactly the same no matter which you use. however they all do use different rate controls. so there can be a difference in the final output. :)



Sorry, true... QuEnc (I believe) you and Nic used Xivd's, NuEnc used petercheat's own and AutoQMatEnc used sapstar's own

my point being is... saying one is King & ffmpeg is much better than Quenc and the other is really bad because Quenc dosent have autodetect. and they both use the same core engine is pretty ignorant.

Edit:

a little lesson on how things work, including ffmpeg.
sourcefile->decoder->decodedframes->encoder->outputfile
explain to me again how knowing what the source file is is going to make any difference again.

Sorry, missed that one the first time... nice :)

Mug Funky
16th April 2007, 14:17
most of the points in this thread are sort of irrelevant to the OP's needs... VCDs are MPEG-1, not MPEG-2. that limits the choice of encoder somewhat.

also, VCD (or rather, compliant VCD, which i'm assuming the OP wishes to make on account of his masters being broadcast formats) is 1150 CBR if i recall correctly. nothing else. so 1, 2, even 10 passes is going to make sod-all difference to the output.

now if the DVCAM is coming out softer than some reference (i'm not quite understanding h3170ra's reference to "original VCD"), it may be due to lack of preprocessing. so perhaps they could run a sharpener/denoiser combo on the source footage and encode with any encoder that is capable of MPEG-1 CBR.

ken2007
20th April 2007, 23:36
have anyone of u use nero vision to encode ,

h3170ra
11th May 2007, 17:10
have anyone of u use nero vision to encode ,

So nero vision can encode into VCD? How is the result? Good?