Encoder vs Transcoder Procoder 3

[six13]

I have read for many years that typically an encoder produces better results than a transcoder. I have used HCenc and DVD Shr_nk in the past and I have recently used Conopus Procoder 3. I was reading the manual for Procoder 3 and it refers to the software as a transcoder. I have herd many speak highly of Procoder. Am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Six13

[Blue_MiSfit]

I don't think Procoder has a compressed domain transcoder along the lines of DVD Shrink or ReJig. The terms are used interchangeably sometimes - when they shouldn't be :)

Procoder is an excellent encoder!

~MiSfit

[six13]

What I liked about Procoder 3 is that I can take a file or VOB set of files and with the wizard select the output size so that compression is applied by Procoder and have control over many things like ac3 or mp2 audio, mastering quality video
9KBS or high quality 6KBS. Authoring, demuxing, muxing is all done with one 1 pgm.

[TEB]

Procoder can work as a Transcoder, which from my point of view is a full decode and encode with a typical yv12 pipe inbetween.
Before one talked about a "transrater" which would do typicall adjust some of the parameters in the encoding pipeline to adhere to a given bandwith limit.. Scientific Atlanta had one of those a few years ago.

[Blue_MiSfit]

I was referring to "compressed domain transcoding" - which is NOT the same thing as decoding to YV12 and then re-encoding. Procoder can indeed do a full re-encode. Without this capability it would be capable of doing absolutely nothing :D

~MiSfit