TMPG or ProCoder?

[Happygolucky]

I have the use of TMPGEnc Plus (yes, I bought it) and have been using it for quite a while to convert AVIs to MPEG2 for SVCDs. I've recently been given a copy of Canopus ProCoder (a legal copy from someone who no longer wanted it, not warez). I've played with it a bit and it seems pretty slick. I usually use DVD2SVCD to automate the task of AVI to SVCD and always used TMPGEnc Plus but the last few versions have really been giving me grief, getting some sort of "stream error" when 2 pass VBR encoding gets to 50%.

So tell me, anyone who knows, is ProCoder as good as or better than TMPGEnc Plus? Speed is irrelevant, I couldn't care less about how fast they are, I'm more interested in quality of the results.
TMPGEnc is giving me so many fits when I try to use it with DVD2SVCD now, and ProCoder doesn't, but I haven't had a chance to compare visual quality between the two, and just wanted to know if someone else has already made such a comparison.

[ultradna]

Sorry, i can't help you, but i saw that TMPGEnc can much more give, than it seems in the first moment.

You need time to get TMPG working (if it doesn't work like you want), but when it works, and you know why it didn't then it is relly great.

And about that "Canopus ProCoder" thing, just search for boards about it and as the people using it.

Good luck.

[Kb_cruncher]

Procoder is not only better than tmpeg but better than cce aswell.highly recommended.

[vmesquita]

Procoder is much better than CCE with noisy sources at low bitrate (like my VHS home movies, going to CVD). In those cases it can encode very well soothing the picture till there are no blocks or mosquito. Sure smoothing may not be that great, but mosquitos and blocks are even worse at least for me, and Procoder smooths just a little. But make sure you use Mastering mode.
For interlaced clean source (like my Satellite capture) it still does slightly better that CCE + Avisynth Filter convolution 3D. But the difference is barelly noticeable (I had to play a clip 4 times to notice the differences), and CCE using Convolution3D is 3/4 times faster than Procoder with no filtering.

[]'s
Vmesquita

[cweb]

I'm very happy to use Tmpgenc Plus since I combine it with avisynth and the great filters which are available for it.

[Happygolucky]

I've had time to run several comparisons. I've taken a Divx 5.04 encoded AVI and run it through both ProCoder and TMPGEnc Plus to produce the highest quality SVCD I can manage (using DVD2SVCD). ProCoder version is 1.01.35, TMPGEnc Plus is 2.512. ProCoder used 2-pass VBR, TMPGEnc Plus used CQ mode. Both produced a file similar in size, but ProCoder's was slightly larger. Viewing the results on my computer using PowerDVD XP showed no noticeable differences. Burned to SVCD and played back on Pioneer 353 on a Philips 65" rear-projection TV also showed no difference. Both are excellent, near DVD quality. Even in shadowed areas the picture is smooth and sharp. Nods to both on quality. Now, the difference is: ProCoder took far far longer to encode, over 5 hours. TMPGEnc Plus took just over 3 hours. This is on a Pentium4 1.7GHz machine running Win XP Pro SP1.

So, with both producing exceptionally high quality results, but TMPGEnc taking significantly less time, my choice is now TMPGEnc Plus.

[Wilbert]

What color format does ProCoder require (YUY2 like CCE or RGB24 like TMPGEnc)?

[Happygolucky]

Originally posted by Wilbert
What color format does ProCoder require (YUY2 like CCE or RGB24 like TMPGEnc)?

That I do not know, I just run it and it works (at least now it does). I have the ConvertToYUV2() and ConvertToRGB24() in my avisynth script (in the DVD2SVCD.INI file) so I don't know which, if either, it needs.

Does TMPGEnc Plus 2.513 (latest version) need the ConvertToRGB24 statement still?

[Boulder]

I think that the conversion to RGB24 is not needed at all if you have a codec capable of doing that (DivX5 or XviD, I suppose). I've never done that conversion when using TMPGEnc with YUY2 and YV12 sources. I once tried it and converting in the Avisynth script was slower and produced a slightly larger file than without the conversion within the script.

[Eric Tetz]

I recently (a month ago?) did some tests with the latest version of ProCoder, TMPGenc, and CCE SP. My source footage was 26 seconds of NTSC DV footage captured with a TRV900 on a bright, sunny day. The subject is a boy's face moving slowly around a busy, rapidly moving background (camera's in the middle of a see-saw, facing out towards the subject, large depth of field).

My results? Procoder, hands down best-looking encodes, followed closely by TMPGenc, with CCE bringing up the rear.

I did several dozen encodes with all three encoders, CBR and VBR at bitrates ranging from 8000-9500. I did a few at lower bitrates, to see if it accentuated the differences I'd noticed at higher rates (it did). All options were set for maximum possible quality. In CCE, I went in and hand tweaked the bit allocation for the lower bitrate tests (the other apps don't have this feature). All filtering turn off. The goal was to get as close is possible to the original DV source material, unaltered, onto a DVD.

All three encoders produce good looking output. To the uncritical eye (i.e my girlfriend), they look pretty similar in motion.

CCE encodes were noisiest -- more 'mosquito' noise around the edges of objects, and more block artifacts in areas with gradiated tones. The TMPGenc encodes had fewer noticeable artifacts. The Procoder encodes were stunning. This is what I was hoping for when I first set out to make my own DVD's -- ultra clean even in freeze frame. Much fewer artifacts, or the nature of the artifacts it introduces are less offensive to the eye.

Anyway, though I would share my observations. If there is a way to get ProCoder quality out of TMPGenc or CCE, I sure would like to know it. Even if I have to deinterlace or do something else to prepare my footage for these encoders, I'm interested. TMPGenc, because it's so damn cheap and CCE because is so damn fast.

Cheers,
Eric

[Happygolucky]

Originally posted by Eric Tetz
Anyway, though I would share my observations. If there is a way to get ProCoder quality out of TMPGenc or CCE, I sure would like to know it. Even if I have to deinterlace or do something else to prepare my footage for these encoders, I'm interested. TMPGenc, because it's so damn cheap and CCE because is so damn fast.


I did a similar comparison between ProCoder, CCE SP, and TMPGEnc Plus. I used ProCoder 1.01.35, CCE SP 2.67.00.09, and TMPGEnc Plus 2.513.53.162. I used a very high quality Divx 5.05 AVI file (1 hour and 42 minutes) as the source, outputting to SVCD in as high a quality as I could reasonably obtain using DVD2SVCD as the operator. Like you, I found CCE to be sorely lacking, it was noticeably inferior to the other two. ProCoder and TMPG were nearly indistinguishable in picture quality, though in dark areas ProCoder exhibited slightly more blockiness (TMPG produced nearly none). The kicker for me was TMPG was significantly faster. ProCoder took 7 hours to encode, TMPG took only 4 hours. Given that so many people rave about CCE, I was really disappointed. Perhaps it can be tweaked to produce exceptional results, but I was more interested in the out-of-the-box experience. I want to watch the results, not spend hours tweaking and fine-tuning. For my money, TMPG wins hands down.

[Boulder]

You might also be interested in testing the KVCD quantization matrix in your encodes. It gives better results on low-lit areas than the standard one (at least in TMPGEnc, that is) and slightly less mosquito noise in the result as well.

[Eric Tetz]

"Like you, I found CCE to be sorely lacking, it was noticeably inferior to the other two. ProCoder and TMPG were nearly indistinguishable in picture quality, though in dark areas ProCoder exhibited slightly more blockiness (TMPG produced nearly none)."

Yup, TMPGenc and ProCoder were closer, CCE was easy to rule out. However, I saw more distortion with TMPGenc than ProCoder. I used max settings on both (i.e. "Mastering Quality" on ProCoder), and high bitrates. When I get my new machine, I'll be doing more tests.

"Given that so many people rave about CCE, I was really disappointed."

Me too, especially considering how fast it is.

"Perhaps it can be tweaked to produce exceptional results, but I was more interested in the out-of-the-box experience."

I did lots of tweaking, assuming it would be a one-time investment -- I would discover the right settings for my purposes and just leave them -- but even with every dial turned up to 11, I never got the quality I wanted.

[Happygolucky]

Originally posted by Boulder
You might also be interested in testing the KVCD quantization matrix in your encodes. It gives better results on low-lit areas than the standard one (at least in TMPGEnc, that is) and slightly less mosquito noise in the result as well.

Which KVCD matrix? I've been to the KVCD website and he has several different matrices. There is also one KVCD matrix already included with DVD2SVCD, is that the one to which you refer?

[Happygolucky]

Originally posted by Eric Tetz
[i]Yup, TMPGenc and ProCoder were closer, CCE was easy to rule out. However, I saw more distortion with TMPGenc than ProCoder. I used max settings on both (i.e. "Mastering Quality" on ProCoder), and high bitrates. When I get my new machine, I'll be doing more tests.


Perhaps since you were going for DVDs and using the higher bitrates, that made Procoder stand out. For the lower bitrates of SVCDs, TMPG was the winner. Viewed on PC using PowerDVD they both were excellent. But burned to disc and viewed through my Pioneer 353 DVD player on a 65" Philips rear-projection TV, the TMPG encode was slightly better. I used the highest quality settings for all the encoders, at least highest quality to produce a 2 disc set from a 1 hour 42 minute movie.

[jorel]

Happygolucky,
excuse me...

Boulder is talking about this matrix for kvcds with tmpgenc:

[KVCD Notch BETA-1a]
Intra=8,9,12,22,26,27,29,34,9,10,14,26,27,29,34,37,12,14,18,27,29,34,37,38,22,26,27,31,36,37,38,40,26,27,29,36,39,38,40,48,27,29,34,37,38,40,48,58,29,34,37,38,40,48,58,69,34,37,38,40,48,58,69,79
NonIntra=16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,22,24,26,30,32,32,34,36,24,26,28,32,34,34,36,38,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,28,30,32,34,36,38,42,42,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44

more details (scripts,GOP values,..some more) in kvcd.net/forum

ps:
great results using DVD2SVCD.
:)

editing:
link to kvcd general specifications
http://www.kvcd.net/e107/article.php?21.255

[Ookami]

Matrices threads:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28447
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27528

TMPGEnc optimisations:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28780

Procoder vs. CCE:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46250

DV -> MPEG 2:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52020
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50390

etc. etc.

Cheers,

Mijo.

[TEB]

By my opinion i find Procoder to make the best quality files. Especially on the lower bitrate movies. I did some tests around 1,5mbit - 3mbit both CBR and VBR. Its really good.
AFAIK i know Procoder supports yuv12, yuv2 as inputs in addition to the other ones..
I think one of the problems with comparing the different encoders here on the forum is that everyone seems to use the cracked 1.01 version thats ages old. The new 1.5.22 version is much better than the old one on compability and somewhat on speed, memory handling, and quality.
Why cant ppl test with the 1.5 demo?
Anyway. I luve using avisynth 2.5 with Procoder 1.5.22, works like a charm since it supports yuv12 directly and .avs files directly.
Problem is that its dead slow, but i guess u get what u pay for in quality :)

my 2 cents...