crespo80
23rd September 2004, 20:07
Hallo everybody. I'm italian so excuse me for my english.
I searched a lot in this forum and in google but I didn't find the answer to my question.
I am quite expert of video editing, and until now i always used TMPGenc PLUS v2.521.58.169 to encode to MPEG2. I wanted to give a try to CCE SP (both vers 2.62.01.01 and vers 2.67.00.27) and i was positive impressed for the speed but also negative impressed for the quality.
I capture from a lifeview prime 30 (philips SAA7130) with its last drivers and the program fly2000TV.
My source is VHS trought composite-video.
I capture at the resolution of 720x576 compressing with HuffyUV to YUY2 (median gradient).
Then i encode the video with both TMPGenc and CCE SP at the same resoluion with no filters and no deinterlace, but with cropping 16pix from bottom, left and right (clip in TMPGenc and BLANKING in CCE).
TMPGenc (all default and CQ:85 bitrate:1000-9656)
CCE SP (Q:35; bitrate:1000-9656; all filters disabled; Quantization characteristic:32; block scanning order:alternate; luminance:0-255)
To compare the files I open them with virtualdubmod, then i copy the frame to clipboard and open it with paintshop. These are the results I obtain (all the files are jpg compressed with a factor of 15):
SOURCE:
http://www.crespo80.altervista.org/11source.jpg
TMPG:
http://www.crespo80.altervista.org/11tmpg.jpg
CCE
http://www.crespo80.altervista.org/11cce.jpg
Notice the TMPGenc file is very close to the source, the CCE one has more falsed colors. I obtain the same result with both versions of CCE SP and with all the possible combinations of settings).
On the other side, CCE is better in dynamic scenes, showing less blocks than TMPGenc, and if I analyze the video with "bitrate analyzer" I finf an average Q of 3 for CCE and 7 for TMPGenc (altough to the eye seems not to be this difference)
My system:
win XP SP2
asus p4p800-E
p4 2400C
2x512mb ram pc3200
ati radeon 9700PRO
I searched a lot in this forum and in google but I didn't find the answer to my question.
I am quite expert of video editing, and until now i always used TMPGenc PLUS v2.521.58.169 to encode to MPEG2. I wanted to give a try to CCE SP (both vers 2.62.01.01 and vers 2.67.00.27) and i was positive impressed for the speed but also negative impressed for the quality.
I capture from a lifeview prime 30 (philips SAA7130) with its last drivers and the program fly2000TV.
My source is VHS trought composite-video.
I capture at the resolution of 720x576 compressing with HuffyUV to YUY2 (median gradient).
Then i encode the video with both TMPGenc and CCE SP at the same resoluion with no filters and no deinterlace, but with cropping 16pix from bottom, left and right (clip in TMPGenc and BLANKING in CCE).
TMPGenc (all default and CQ:85 bitrate:1000-9656)
CCE SP (Q:35; bitrate:1000-9656; all filters disabled; Quantization characteristic:32; block scanning order:alternate; luminance:0-255)
To compare the files I open them with virtualdubmod, then i copy the frame to clipboard and open it with paintshop. These are the results I obtain (all the files are jpg compressed with a factor of 15):
SOURCE:
http://www.crespo80.altervista.org/11source.jpg
TMPG:
http://www.crespo80.altervista.org/11tmpg.jpg
CCE
http://www.crespo80.altervista.org/11cce.jpg
Notice the TMPGenc file is very close to the source, the CCE one has more falsed colors. I obtain the same result with both versions of CCE SP and with all the possible combinations of settings).
On the other side, CCE is better in dynamic scenes, showing less blocks than TMPGenc, and if I analyze the video with "bitrate analyzer" I finf an average Q of 3 for CCE and 7 for TMPGenc (altough to the eye seems not to be this difference)
My system:
win XP SP2
asus p4p800-E
p4 2400C
2x512mb ram pc3200
ati radeon 9700PRO