Quenc Undersizes Dramatically

[gizzin]

I have done 2 encodes with Quenc, Trellis and High Quality checked. One was appleseed 2004 r1 and Sadamitsu the destroyer. Appleseed was 4.02gigs it had interleaving in it and Sadamitsu which was 3.49gigs. Thought I just report this.

[Fishman0919]

Try it without Trellis... I have got undersizing with trellis and turn it off and got the right size... and I found that Trellis only help at really low bitrate 3000k and down...not to noticeable at mid to high bitrates

[feedback]

Could you define mid to high bitrates.

Regards,:)

[Fishman0919]

Could you define mid to high bitrates.

Regards,:)

For me anything above 3500k would be mid and 4500k high

I use QLB at 4000k and down.... 3000k and down Trellis

[Carpo]

would that be with any encoder or just quenc ?

[Fishman0919]

would that be with any encoder or just quenc ?

Well, QLB with any encoder at 4000k and down..... can't think of any other encoder that has Trellis.... oh wait AutoQMatEnc does... :D

[Carpo]

damn fast response - gonna give HC a go seeing as 2 passes is all u need

been testing sapstars encoder - results are good although speed is an issue

[Fishman0919]

damn fast response

lol, faster

[Carpo]

i had to edit mine :D

[feedback]

For me anything above 3500k would be mid and 4500k high

I use QLB at 4000k and down.... 3000k and down Trellis

Thanks, there should be a sticky about this type of information.

Regards,:)

[SAPSTAR]

damn fast response - gonna give HC a go seeing as 2 passes is all u need

been testing sapstars encoder - results are good although speed is an issue
Well...with the latest version it's not that slow. BadServo is to release some tests...and it seems that HC in Best mode is slower than the current version of AutoQMatEnc.....anyway, for me it's better slow and good than fast and bad ask a woman ! ;)
But you're right HC is really a very good encoder....
For very low and low bitrates I encourage people to try the latest AutoQMatEnc I had really good results on it.....

[spyhawk]

For very low and low bitrates I encourage people to try the latest AutoQMatEnc I had really good results on it.....How low do you have in mind? Still good with avg 3000-4000 bitrate in main feature, and extras will be lower, compared to HC?

[SAPSTAR]

How low do you have in mind? Still good with avg 3000-4000 bitrate in main feature, and extras will be lower, compared to HC?
I mean about 2500 for main and about 1250 or less for HalfD1(extras)...it works really well with 3 passes.

[Carpo]

Well...with the latest version it's not that slow. BadServo is to release some tests...and it seems that HC in Best mode is slower than the current version of AutoQMatEnc.....anyway, for me it's better slow and good than fast and bad ask a woman ! ;)
But you're right HC is really a very good encoder....
For very low and low bitrates I encourage people to try the latest AutoQMatEnc I had really good results on it.....

when i tried AutoQMatEnc 22a it took 4 hours to do 40% on a 2 pass encode so it looks like it will take 8 hours + and even hc on best donest take that long (although i am testing hc 0.15 now)

[SAPSTAR]

when i tried AutoQMatEnc 22a it took 4 hours to do 40% on a 2 pass encode so it looks like it will take 8 hours + and even hc on best donest take that long (although i am testing hc 0.15 now)
I didn't say it was fast...I said it was good....and my first interest in an encoder is the quality/sizing over the speed. That's maybe why I don't use DVDShrink....:)

[dragongodz]

getting back on the actual topic... its a known problem with the latest versions of QuEnc to undersize some times(often ?). you can read more about it in the actual QuEnc thread in the "other mpeg 1/2 encoder" section.