Is HCEnc superior to Procoder 3?

[Pulp Catalyst]

don't want to start a war, but even though quality is always preferred, it never hurts to look for both,

i know that procoder 2 gave HCEnc a big run for it's money, a very big run, but all in all (adding the scored from multiple forums) HCEnc did have the upper hand,

however i saw procoder 3 in action around my mates house and i must admit, they have made some speed increases, but quality is something i will leave to the pro's on this site,

hope someone can advise, and please keep it civil, i don't want to start no flame wars, just some honest mature opinions,

[Groucho2004]

i know that procoder 2 gave HCEnc a big run for it's money, a very big run, but all in all (adding the scored from multiple forums) HCEnc did have the upper hand
That's a rather bizarre statement. In which parallel universe are these forums where you gathered that information? It sounds like Procoder is the underdog and HC the big bucks professional software.

Apart from that, the MPEG-2 encoding engines from Procoder 2 and 3 seem to be identical. I did test encodes with both and the resulting m2v files were identical.

[kumi]

Last time I checked, Procoder 3 uses the exact same MPEG-2 encoding engine as Procoder 2. Assuming identical settings, the output will be bit-identical.

Edit: oops, beaten to the punch

[blutach]

This is right smack dab in the middle of rule 12. Let's stop it now.

Both are very good - use what you like best.

http://www.digital-digest.com/~blutach/threadlocked.gif

Regards