Issues with ProCoder 3 and DivX / XviD sources

[Velvet Ghost]

I'm using ProCoder 3 to encode some files encoded in DivX / XviD into MPEG2 so that I can author them to DVD. The content is mainly rare video footage / TV transmission / concert video of a certain music artist. It's not possible for me to get any better quality sources for these, in some cases no better source exists.

The stuff is mainly from 1965 - 1985, although one particular silent clip was recorded in 1928! In accordance with the times, the quality of the video is mainly poor, with lots of noise, etc. The files have bitrates around 1000 - 2000 kbps.

What I want is a relatively faithful conversion to MPEG2, retaining whatever little video clarity there is. I've heard that ProCoder is better than CCE SP for this particular type (bad source) of conversion.

Unfortunately, even when encoding at 8000Kbps in 'Mastering' mode, I have found a significant drop in quality, even with my untrained eye. The image appears blurred and less detailed and the colours are less vibrant and look faded. When encoding at lower bitrates this quality drop obviously persists, but doesn't seem to be getting any worse. What am I doing wrong? I tried TMPGEnc and Nero codecs as well. As expected, results were even worse than ProCoder.

Thanks in advance.

[setarip_old]

Hi!

You might want to save a step or two and simply use (freeware) DVD Flick to convert your DivX-compressed and XviD-compressed .AVIs DIRECTLY to DVD...

[Velvet Ghost]

This should have been clear from my first post, but I have no problems actually performing the conversion - it's just that I'm not satisfied with the quality. I greatly doubt that DVD Flick will provide quality superior to ProCoder 3, which is considered to be one of the best MPEG2 encoders in the market.

[setarip_old]

You won't know for sure, unless you try it, will you? ;>}

[Velvet Ghost]

Here's a snapshot from the original video:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4739/orgdy3.jpg

And here's a snapshot from an MPEG2 encoded at 8000Kbps, all settings to highest quality possible, and mastering mode:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/8381/recat8.jpg

Hope that helps in your diagnosis.

[setarip_old]

Hope that helps in your diagnosis.I'm not the one making any diagnosis. I've suggested that you, on the other hand, try DVD Flick and compare the results...

[Irakli]

@Velvet Ghost
Well, Procoder is known to cause excessive blurring sometimes IIRC. Have you tried DVD Flick as suggested by setarip_old?

Also, I would suggest trying HCEnc. I use it with 'bad' & extremely difficult sources (home movies) quite often, and so far I had only positive experience with HCEnc.

[45tripp]

i think you should provide a sample clip.

You won't know for sure, unless you try it, will you? ;>}
well...
fair statement in theory,
but highly unlikley.

as far as encoders go,
i'd pick procoder (2, 3 not tested),
and you don't have all that many choices anyway,
so you could go through them in a day.
try HC,
try ffmpeg, with basics, try tweaking
spin Quenc
the easy access free solutions.
then you're left with payware CCE and Mainconcept
to trial.

[setarip_old]

@Irakli

Hi!

If I remember correctly, DVD Flick utilizes HCEnc ;>}

[45tripp]

@Irakli

Hi!

If I remember correctly, DVD Flick utilizes HCEnc ;>}

not unless there've been drastic changes in the latest betas.
dvd flick uses ffmpeg as it's engine.


also forgot to say,
i've seen negative views about mastering mode
in past years, so you might try a lower mode.

[MrC]

Why don't you give a try to AVStoDVD. It uses both QuEnc or HCenc to generate DVD-compliant streams. You can setup encoding configuration and, if you are able, you can even play with AviSynth script. Ah, it is free (open source).

:)

Bye

[setarip_old]

@Immersion

Just to set the record straight, DVD Flick did originally use HCEnc up to v.1.2.0 RC1.

Per the "Changelog.txt" file:Version 1.2.0 RC 1

- Changed: Abandoned DirectShow, HCEnc, AVISynth and Aften in favour of FFMPEG. Hopefully the last big internal makeover.

[45tripp]

before my time :)

[setarip_old]

A quotable quote:To understand the Present, one must study the Past ;>}

[manono]

1) The pictures were taken from different frames.
2) The second one has been resized by whatever player you used to take the pic. The resizer used could play a part in this.
3) Therefore the pics were taken from 2 different players, making the comparison apples to oranges. Maybe one used the overlay and the other didn't.
4) It's hard to tell, but it looks to me like the second pic was deinterlaced, either by the player or in the script or the encoder. Was the source interlaced and the output made progressive one way or another?
5) What script did you use?

[Velvet Ghost]

Sorry I've been away for so long. Thanks for responding, manono. The pictures were taken on the same frame, both using Windows Media Player Classic, using the 'go to frame' feature directly! And the second picture is not resized, just letterboxed. Here's all the information you should need about the source and the output:

Source:
General #0
Complete name : C:\Users\Atriya\Videos\1.avi
Format : AVI
Format/Info : Audio Video Interleave
Format/Family : RIFF
File size : 1.22 GiB
PlayTime : 1h 43mn
Bit rate : 1691 Kbps
StreamSize/String : 8.75 MiB

Video #0
Codec : DivX 5
Codec/Family : MPEG-4V
Codec settings, Packet bitst : No
Codec settings, BVOP : Yes
Codec settings, QPel : No
Codec settings, GMC : 0
Codec settings, Matrix : Default
PlayTime : 1h 43mn
Bit rate : 1519 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 480 pixels
Display Aspect ratio : 1.500
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Resolution : 8 bits
Interlacement : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.147
StreamSize/String : 1.10 GiB
Writing library : DivX 5.0.2
Writing library/Date : UTC 2002-05-16

Audio #0
Codec : MPEG-1 Audio layer 3
Codec profile : Joint stereo
Bit rate mode : CBR
Bit rate : 160 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits
StreamSize/String : 118 MiB
Writing library : LAME3.92
Encoding settings : CBR
Coherency/PlayTime : 9287

Result:
General #0
Complete name : C:\Users\Atriya\Videos\1.m2v
Format : MPEG-2 Video
Format/Family : MPEG-2
File size : 25.0 MiB
PlayTime : 25s 1ms
Bit rate : 8391 Kbps

Video #0
Codec : MPEG-2 Video
Codec/Family : MPEG-V
Codec profile : Main@Main
Codec settings, Matrix : Standard
PlayTime : 25s 1ms
Bit rate mode : CBR
Bit rate : 8052 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 9800 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 480 pixels
Display Aspect ratio : 4/3
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Chroma : 4:2:0
Interlacement : Top Field First
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.946

In the meantime, I encoded the same thing with QuEnc, using the highest possible settings, though that took 15 mins to encode 40 seconds, even on my Core 2 Duo. Here's the result:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3346/snapshot20080528102345kz1.jpg

Here are the specs of the output file:

General #0
Complete name : C:\Users\Atriya\Videos\clip.m2v
Format : MPEG-2 Video
Format/Family : MPEG-2
File size : 25.5 MiB
PlayTime : 39s 767ms
Bit rate : 5386 Kbps

Video #0
Codec : MPEG-2 Video
Codec/Family : MPEG-V
Codec profile : Main@Main
Codec settings, Matrix : Standard
PlayTime : 39s 767ms
Bit rate mode : CBR
Bit rate : 5166 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 9800 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 480 pixels
Display Aspect ratio : 1.500
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Chroma : 4:2:0
Interlacement : Bottom Field First
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.946

I'd say it's much better than ProCoder 3, but keep in mind that it took about 20 times more time to encode. However, its quality is still noticeably inferior to the original.

I also, uploaded a little clip of the source. Here's the link:

http://www.savefile.com/files/1577732

[hank315]

Encoded with HCenc: VlHor (http://i26.tinypic.com/b51yrp.png)

[45tripp]

However, its quality is still noticeably inferior to the original.

:>) not much quality in the original.

we all seem to have diff levels,
so i post original and processed of frame 775

original
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/1658/hallovj8.png (http://imageshack.us)


procoder2 (8000)
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2610/hallap0.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Velvet Ghost]

hank315, that HCEnc encode is extremely faded-looking. I think you're using some faulty settings there, the encoder can't be THAT bad. Anyway, thanks for giving it a try.

Immersion, excellent!!! That's by far the best one I've seen so far. Apart from a barely-noticeable loss in colour 'vibrance' it's virtually 'transparent' to the eye. In running video I'm sure nobody will be able to make out a difference. Problem is, I have ProCoder 3 as well, and I'm getting terrible results! What settings are you using? Are you tweaking a lot?

[45tripp]

HC (8000)
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3640/hallhrq8.png (http://imageshack.us)

the HC encoder is superb actually.


like i said, i've not tried procoder3. I used proc2.
yeah default settings,
what i like and dislike about procoder,
a.you don't have to mess with things cause quality is great with a click of a button,
b.you can';t mess with settings, which is not good for people with tweak fever.

all i did was set source and target to interlaced tff really.

probably didn't even need the 8000 bitrate,
just selected it cause it's what you were using.

in other words it's an easy encode, and more than one encoder will suit.

[Velvet Ghost]

This is very strange! I have tried this encode on my computer using Procoder 3, CCE SP, TMPGEnc, and HCEnc so far, and in all cases I have got distinctly degraded results, to a lesser or greater extent. And yet you have got MUCH better results with the same HCEnc, and with ProCoder 2! I must be unconsciously doing something wrong. Could there be something wrong with my installation or hardware? I know this is impossible for you to diagnose, but I'm really baffled.

[45tripp]

well i don't have any junk codecs in my decoding chain.
try killng all codecs and work up from zero starting with ffdshow.

also with procoder i feed it with avisynth input,
and convert to yuy2