Transcode vs Re-encode comparison ( with quality / perception metrics )

[Kayaker]

Hi there you gurus.

Is there any serious comparison of transcoding vs reencoding with results in metrics and also visual perceptions ?
Using quality metrics and also visual inspection to do some ranking ?

For example DVD Dshrink vs CCE / TMPEnc / QueEnc / etc )

Thanks

[techmule]

my friend transcoding and encoding are two different worlds in themselves and you are trying to compare apples to oranges. But anyways my opinion is that encoding will always give better results and also you need to have a keen eye to detect artifacts/quality loss due to transcoding if the compression levels are like above 75% on a CRT. Unless you have a big screen projector, you might not be able to differentiate between a transcoded and encoded DVD at above %age's.

[elizerrojas]

quote."you need to have a keen eye to detect artifacts/quality loss due to transcoding if the compression levels are like above 75% on a CRT. Unless you have a big screen projector, you might not be able to differentiate between a transcoded and encoded DVD at above %age's."

RIGHT!

there is the #1 reason i don't use encoders.
reason#2. it just take tooooooo long backup a movie with a of which you are supposted to have the original.

with that my friends, i have to say. go shrink, go recode2.

[feedback]

Using visual inspection to do some ranking ?
If you follow the below link you will see that encoders were chosen over transcoders in a blind test by unbiased and neutral observers. Indeed, the overall outcome speaks for itself.

Link to Test Located Here. (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=91418)

Regards,:)

[setarip_old]

Although I completely agree that a subjective, visual appraisal of active video is all that really counts, and that re-encoders likely generate a higher quality video, it seems to me that a test of only three programs is not conclusive.

Programs such as DVD2One, DVD95Copy, ShrinkTo5, just to name a few, should also be included for comparison - the more the merrier ;>}

[blutach]

And other encoders such as Procoder and HcEnc, both of which are really top class.

Regards

[Trahald]

reason#2. it just take tooooooo long backup a movie with a of which you are supposted to have the original.

eh.. what does that have to do with having the original. I watch my lotr EE's on my backups (my daughter likes to watch them too and she is really hard on disks) If one of the backups dies i can pullout the original and do it again. I only backup the main movies, i didnt bother on the extra disks since i only watched them once. Why would i watch a shrink version ( considering I think encoding is better) just because i own an original.

[jdobbs]

with that my friends, i have to say. go shrink, go recode2.And enjoy the artifacts! Consider it "artistic effects" and you won't even care.

Not me. If I didn't care about quality I just would have stayed with VHS instead of DVD...

[ux-3]

I guess each of us has an individual point, where a reencode is preferable to a shrink. I freely admit that I am not the reencoding guy, when I have to reduce to 97%. I'll just transcode it without even thinking about it. At 80%, I'll just reencode it, without thinking about it either.
With the drop of media prices, I will soon do neither. I dare say that both reencoding and transcoding will soon be as outdated as DVD2SVCD is now. Nobody sane (don't take that personal, please - we are all freaks) bothers to make SVCD backups when a DVD costs about the same. Once DVD-9s are down to 50 cents, who would go through all the trouble to save 20 cents when using DVD-5s? Not me. So the market for the current software projekts will dry up, their authors might just change their approach too and end the developement.

So this discussion, albeit very interresting, takes place on the titanic... :-)

One point on the linked "blind compare". To draw an analogy, if you have used a record player and change to CD, at first you may actually not even like the new sound. While being a student, I was financing myself by working in various technology stores, and I frequently encountered that effect: You like what you are used to. So I would not judge actual quality from preference. When we were selling CD players back in the early 80's and customers didn't like the sound, we played them "another player", being the same player, just cutting trebble and adding mid frequencies. All of a sudden, they liked it...

Greetings
ux-3

[setarip_old]

So the market for the current software projekts will dry up, their authors might just change their approach too and end the developement.Or modify their programs to be used for ripping and compressing BluRay and HD DVDs ;>}

[ux-3]

Do you really think the change will be fast? Even today, CDs are in widespread use. Although a better audio format is available, it isn't catching on. I wonder if people will make the transition, after equipping themselves with DVD players and all. I have my doubts.

Greetings
ux-3

[setarip_old]

Do you really think the change will be fast?No, I don't - but I'm sure the programmers of ripping and compressing software will be among the first to "jump in"...