NanoBot
12th October 2003, 17:27
Hi,
I would like to ask the following question:
Is the q.level of the bitrateviewer ( http://www.tecoltd.com/bitratev.htm ) an objective measure for the quality of an encoded / transcoded m2v stream ?
As many of you I have been testing requant.exe ( the optimized version ) and it is very fast! To check the qualitiy, I have been transcoding the video stream of "Matrix Reloaded" ( PAL Version ), reducing the size to 72%. Then I have done the same using avisynth / mpeg2dec3dg.dll and CCE 2.5 in quick compression mode using an equivalent average bitrate.
The result is, that the bitrateviewer shows me much lower average and peak q.levels for the CCE encoded stream then for the requant.exe transcoded stream. That is imho ok until here, but the q.levels of the cce stream are also much lower than those from the original stream. Therefore my question is how that is possible ? Do these results possibly indicate, that the bitrate distribution of the original video is not optimal ?
C.U. NanoBot
I would like to ask the following question:
Is the q.level of the bitrateviewer ( http://www.tecoltd.com/bitratev.htm ) an objective measure for the quality of an encoded / transcoded m2v stream ?
As many of you I have been testing requant.exe ( the optimized version ) and it is very fast! To check the qualitiy, I have been transcoding the video stream of "Matrix Reloaded" ( PAL Version ), reducing the size to 72%. Then I have done the same using avisynth / mpeg2dec3dg.dll and CCE 2.5 in quick compression mode using an equivalent average bitrate.
The result is, that the bitrateviewer shows me much lower average and peak q.levels for the CCE encoded stream then for the requant.exe transcoded stream. That is imho ok until here, but the q.levels of the cce stream are also much lower than those from the original stream. Therefore my question is how that is possible ? Do these results possibly indicate, that the bitrate distribution of the original video is not optimal ?
C.U. NanoBot