Nero Recode 2 released!

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Doom9
The next codec comparison will give you something to think about in that area ;) It's not that ND isn't fastest, it's who comes in second.. but since I'm far from being done that's all I can say right now. I really don't know how you find the time!

The days must be longer on your side of the Atlantic.

Cheers

EDIT: You've just reminded me that one of the DivX beta's was very quick indeed when MV was enabled. The second pass was faster than the first! And I reckon the quality would still have been better than Recode2's.

[bobololo]

Originally posted by bond
why do my test show than that xvid produces better quali than ND? :p


Because it's slower ! God, Bond, you're a moderator ! Shouldn't you show the example and avoid posting such ridiculous troll ? ;)

[bond]

Originally posted by bobololo
Shouldn't you show the example and avoid posting such ridiculous troll ?nah, posting how i interpreted the results of my tests is not trolling :o

my posting above of course indirectly includes that this is only my subjective opinion and that my test encodes of course are not at all universally representative for all different movie types, bit rate ranges, codec settings (including different motion search algos), pre- and postprocessing aso... (maybe i should add this disclaimer to my signature to avoid getting bashed for posting my opinion ;) )

but i can of course send everyone my test encodes, if there is interest...

Originally posted by bobololo
Because it's slower !well my posting had the sense to show that ND, as mpeg-4 codec, hasnt reached the limit qualitywise in my opinion (as in my opinion xvid shows) :p

this of course also doesnt mean that ND produces crap quality, the contrary is the case in my opinion (but i also wouldnt have anything against it, if ND would be slower and would produce even better quality as it is the case atm in my opinion :D )

[bobololo]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I don't confess to understand the internal workings of an encoding engine. But I would have thought it has to be possible for Ahead to squeeze more quality out of a Recode2.


Basically, we're always working on improvements and the next coming versions will be better (quality or performance wise).

Actually what I meant was : don't expect to have a 50% quality gain in exchange of 50% speed decrease, the mpeg-4 tools can't allow this. With some exaggerations, you could at best get 1% of quality improvement for 50% of speed. Meanwhile, with this 50% of speed you could get 25% of quality improvement with better tools (ie in-loop filter, adaptative entropy encoding, etc present in other codecs like wm9, h.264, ...).

I hope I was clearer :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Much clearer thanks bobololo.

Is there any reason why you have not provided a link in your 'profile' to Nero's website. Or made a note in a 'sig' so we all know who you represent!

Cheers

[bobololo]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Much clearer thanks bobololo.

Is there any reason why you have not provided a link in your 'profile' to Nero's website. Or made a note in a 'sig' so we all know who you represent!

Cheers

Hum there is no special reasons. Basically I'm not from Ahead but from Ateme so it could be confusing. I could add a link to nerodigital.com, I'll do it sometimes.

[chilledoutuk]

xvids quality is better becuase it utilizes more advanced features like vhq and trelis quantiseation (obviously at the expense of speed) but we have the option if we want better quality.

Thats all we are asking for is advanced features like vhq to be available in nero digital to bring it on par with other mpeg-4 codecs in possble quality.

Alternatively you could always alow the use of external codecs such as divx or xvid in your very nicely put together encoding application.

Dont have a go at bond hes simply stating the fact that at the moment teh xvid codec has the ability to produce higher quality video than nero digital codec at the cost of speed.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by bobololo
Hum there is no special reasons. Basically I'm not from Ahead but from Ateme so it could be confusing. I could add a link to nerodigital.com, I'll do it sometimes. So what exactly is your companies relationship with Nero/Ahead?

[bobololo]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
So what exactly is your companies relationship with Nero/Ahead?

Quoting from www.nerodigital.com :

"Nero Digital is the result of extensive co-development between Ahead Software and Ateme..."

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by bobololo
Quoting from www.nerodigital.com : Blimey!

In the spirit of the saying....

"If you don't ask. You don't get"

Does your company have any other tools that may be useful to us guys here on the forum?

Cheers

[chilledoutuk]

doom in your guide for nerodigital it says

"Last but not least there is the Resize tab, where you can also set a custom size, but keep in mind that Recode doesn't automatically adjust the resolution such that it still corresponds to the proper aspect ratio. So, if you change either resolution, make sure you adjust the other as well to preserve the proper relationship between horizontal and vertical resolution."

Because recode flags the aspect ratio the video on the mpeg4 steam is always anamorphic and thus when played back will always be displayed in the orginal aspect regardless of the horizontal and verticle resolution.
(I have tested this and made 720x576 and 608x472 encodes without leterboxing both which display perfect 16:9 aspect)

This an important adavantage of the .mp4 container format and should be included in the guide in my opinion.

[Doom9]

Because recode flags the aspect ratio the video on the mpeg4 steam is always anamorphic Ahem.. that is not correct. My 640x272 rips have an 1:1 DAR, not 16:9 and they are not stretched during playback.

[chilledoutuk]

Ok what i meant to say was that Because recode flags the aspect ratio of the video on the mpeg4 stream the video played back will always be displayed in the orginal aspect regardless of the horizontal and verticle resolution.

when i create an anamorphic encode like this

http://www.aoul98.dsl.pipex.com/toy.mp4

I have maintained the resolution of the orginal dvd thus when the bitrate is suffcient it will result in a better quality encode.

I simply think this is something that should be mentioned in your guide to make it even more useful.

[Doom9]

if that's really the case (I'm not using ND and especially not the MP4 container because it's not editable and my standalones don't play it) it's a very dangerous thing. For starters there are 2 aspect ratios in DVDs, one in the IFO and one in the MPEG-2 stream and they don't always agree (ID4 is a good example.. looking at the MPEG-2 stream you'd think it's 4:3 and resize it improperly), and then if you choose an odd resolution your playback will be stretched improperly.

[chilledoutuk]

Its very rare to find mpeg2 streams on dvds that have the incorect aspect flaged on them and even then you can simply use a program like avestensione to change the aspect flaged in the header.

http://www.offeryn.de/avestensione.htm

im going to try out the new xvid beta as this aparently now can flag aspect ratios.

[chilledoutuk]

oh it just came to me recode reads the ifo's from a dvd and thus uses the aspect from them.

Thus the aspect will always will be the same as the dvd.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by chilledoutuk
Ok what i meant to say was that Because recode flags the aspect ratio of the video on the mpeg4 stream the video played back will always be displayed in the orginal aspect regardless of the horizontal and verticle resolution.....

....I have maintained the resolution of the orginal dvd thus when the bitrate is suffcient it will result in a better quality encode.

I simply think this is something that should be mentioned in your guide to make it even more useful. Speaking as a fellow anamorphic DVD backup fan. I also like this feature in Recode2.

Toy Story 2 is a good source to encode because it's aspect ratio is 1.77:1 And as such every single one of its 720x576 pixels are image pixels!

I downloaded your short clip and when played in hardware (Xcard) and viewed on my 42" plasma the image looked excellet. As you say there's no fiddling about to do with aspect ratio etc, the image just 'flicks' out to the correct size, just like the orignal DVD!

There is one big draw back however, when generating 720x480/576 anamorphic encodes. And that is you need to encode using higher bitrates, which is fine if you've got the storage space but not so good if you want to back up a two hour movie to CD-R.

But keep experimenting chilledoutuk, that's what it's all about. And having fun ofcourse!

[bobololo]

Originally posted by chilledoutuk
xvids quality is better becuase it utilizes more advanced features like vhq and trelis quantiseation (obviously at the expense of speed) but we have the option if we want better quality.

Thats all we are asking for is advanced features like vhq to be available in nero digital to bring it on par with other mpeg-4 codecs in possble quality.

I see your point of view and I guess you'll understand that we had to make some choices (related to marketing targets, technical issues). And those choices conducted us to the codec available today and its future evolution. Obviously it has advantages and drawbacks and it's up to you to choose to use it or not. You always have the option.


Alternatively you could always alow the use of external codecs such as divx or xvid in your very nicely put together encoding application.

Have you ever realized that ND is a direct competitor of xvid/divx ? :) By doing so, this would just mean that we would allow our competitors to use our own weapons against ourselves. This definitely doesn't make any sense :)

[bobololo]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Blimey!

In the spirit of the saying....

"If you don't ask. You don't get"

Does your company have any other tools that may be useful to us guys here on the forum?

Cheers

Did you check nerodigital website ? Basically multimedia products dedicated to the end user market will be available under the nerodigital label. Ateme is rather a technology provider. If you're interested, check out www.ateme.com !

[ookzDVD]

@forum,

Is there any tricks to do 2-pass with target below 32Mb ?
The Nero always refuse to enter a value below 32Mb :(

[temporance]

Originally posted by bobololo
Alternatively you could always alow the use of external codecs such as divx or xvid in your very nicely put together encoding application.
Have you ever realized that ND is a direct competitor of xvid/divx ? :) By doing so, this would just mean that we would allow our competitors to use our own weapons against ourselves. This definitely doesn't make any sense :)
Well, not really. DivX, xvid and ND are all MPEG-4 compatible codecs. Even if I could use the DivX 5.1.1 or xvid 1.0 codec within Recode 2, the file I create would still be a "Nero digital" file as it is in Ahead's proprietary flavor of mp4.

To me it sounds like you are admitting that the ND encoder is below par when compared to DivX/xvid. Having said that, the Recode app is very pretty and easy on the newbie. It's a great shame that we can't combine your app with a better codec. Maybe you should team up with DivX!

[bobololo]

Originally posted by ookzDVD
@forum,

Is there any tricks to do 2-pass with target below 32Mb ?
The Nero always refuse to enter a value below 32Mb :(

You can also change the target size indirectly with the bitrate slider. In such case you should be able to produce a file smaller than 32 MB.

[chilledoutuk]

im having problems with the video at the end of film backups with recode beginisging to get artifacting as though the bitrate has been reduced.
Charateristicaly it hapens about 4mins before the end of the encode.

Is this some sort of bitrate reduction for the credits on films or is it a bug.

been playing around with ffvfw which can flag the aspect ratio and been getting quite impressive results.

Does anyone know of a program that can add an aspect ration flag to a mpeg4 stream created with divx?

[bond]

Originally posted by chilledoutuk
Does anyone know of a program that can add an aspect ration flag to a mpeg4 stream created with divx?nope no such tool available till now, but it is possible and i already bugged alexnoe to add this in avimuxgui but he doesnt seem to be interested :(
shitowax from 3ivx once wrote that they will perhaps implement something like that in their mp4 muxer

Originally posted by temporance
Having said that, the Recode app is very pretty and easy on the newbie. It's a great shame that we can't combine your app with a better codec. Maybe you should team up with DivX!well you have to understand that ahead wants to sell their own stuff, they dont have an interest in supporting divx5, as you said they are competitors
ahead wants to get people away from their competitors, thats how business goes...

the file I create would still be a "Nero digital" file as it is in Ahead's proprietary flavor of mp4.aheads mp4 files are totally spec compliant (you can play/use them with every mp4 implementation, excluding chapters and subs as i wrote already)

To me it sounds like you are admitting that the ND encoder is below par when compared to DivX/xvid.well its not really bad, in fact if you use qpel you can get a lot of details, imho nero digital is perhaps the codec with the best speed/quality relationship

only because xvid is f*cking damn great, it doesnt mean that other codecs are crap :D

[bobololo]

Originally posted by temporance
Well, not really. DivX, xvid and ND are all MPEG-4 compatible codecs. Even if I could use the DivX 5.1.1 or xvid 1.0 codec within Recode 2, the file I create would still be a "Nero digital" file as it is in Ahead's proprietary flavor of mp4.

To me it sounds like you are admitting that the ND encoder is below par when compared to DivX/xvid. Having said that, the Recode app is very pretty and easy on the newbie. It's a great shame that we can't combine your app with a better codec.

I didn't think so far :) Basically the very simple idea was to say that we have spend much time, invest much resources to bring the best complete solution including video and also audio, subtitles, standalone support, superior mpeg-2 decoder, nice GUI, etc. Do you realize the amount of work all these represent. Don't forget that any module (and the list is long) in Nero was completely developed in house and just consider the time divx/xvid took to develop the video codec only (several years). Then what is the point to give all this work away to our direct competitor ? What is the great shame ? :)

Maybe you should team up with DivX!

It's gonna be hard :) It's just like you asking Pepsi to team up with Coke ;)

[temporance]

Originally posted by bobololo
It's gonna be hard :) It's just like you asking Pepsi to team up with Coke ;) LOL. But by your analogy, I can only buy Pepsi in cans and can only drink it from the can. Coke is available everywhere in cans, bottles and on tap. (I can't think of a soda analogous to xvid as none are free/greyware!).

Anyway, bobololo, good luck with your venture and Happy New Year.

[ammer]

xvid is like dnL to 7up in respect that it's backwards and is green.

[Tuning]

Originally posted by bobololo
Have you ever realized that ND is a direct competitor of xvid/divx ? :)bobololo, If ND need to be more welcomed as superb competitor to other codecs, we need either a vfw version or some tools that allow direct transcoding from avi, mpg, avs and other popular video files than allowing direct DVD -> ND transcode. Many of us uses other codecs for other than DVD transcoding with help of Vdub. So I think popularity of these codecs are mainly bcoz of thier vfw implementation.
:)

[gino25]

But is it possible to use nero recode 2 to encode with an external vfw codec like divx/xvid?

[bobololo]

Originally posted by Tuning
bobololo, If ND need to be more welcomed as superb competitor to other codecs, we need either a vfw version or some tools that allow direct transcoding from avi, mpg, avs and other popular video files than allowing direct DVD -> ND transcode. Many of us uses other codecs for other than DVD transcoding with help of Vdub. So I think popularity of these codecs are mainly bcoz of thier vfw implementation.
:)

Well, as Menno already mentionned, Recode 2 is the very first application from Nero Suite that includes ND codec. The purpose of Recode is DVD backup that's why it doesn't allow to process anything but complete DVD input.

Later, ND codec will be obviously included in most Nero's application and more specificaly Vision Express 2, the audio/video editing tool. With this tool, you'll be able to select different source (avi, mpeg, mov, etc) edit them and export the result in ND.

So all I can say now is to be patient, things are to come, after all the first release was only 2 weeks ago ! :)

[gino25]

Originally posted by gino25
But is it possible to use nero recode 2 to encode with an external vfw codec like divx/xvid?

So it' s impossible at the moment?:(

[Doom9]

Fire up graphedit, look for the NeroDigital encoder, connect it as follows: asynch source (avisynth script) -> ND encoder -> avimuxer -> filewriter, configure the ND encoder, press play to encode. It's cumbersome compared with vfw codecs though.

[gino25]

But since mpeg2 decoder of recode2 is faster than mpeg2dec3, i want (if possible) to use mpeg decoder of recode, to decompress my dvd vob, and use vp6, or xvid 1.0 to recomrpess

I don' t wantto use nero digital mpeg.4

[Doom9]

why says its faster? Just because Recode is faster doesn't mean the decoder is faster. In fact, you'll see my numbers soon and I didn't notice any significant speed difference in encoding ND via Avisynth /mpeg2dec and via Recode. Plus, recode uses a bilinear filter which is faster but blurrier.. using Avisynth you get a sharper picture.

And you should really fire up Graphedit.. have a look at all the filters in there.. I think you'll find the filter Recode uses.

[bobololo]

Originally posted by Doom9
why says its faster? Just because Recode is faster doesn't mean the decoder is faster. In fact, you'll see my numbers soon and I didn't notice any significant speed difference in encoding ND via Avisynth /mpeg2dec and via Recode.

This seemed weird since it was not what I keep in mind in my previous tests. So I did some tests to check and here are my results :

1. encode with picture cropped to 720x432, no resize
- avisynth required 3m30s (65.7 fps)
- recode required 3m05s (75.6 fps) (15.1% faster)

2. encode with picture cropped to 720x432 and resized to 720x304
- avisynth required 3m00s (76.7 fps)
- recode required 2m27s (93.9 fps) (22.4% faster)

The sequence encoded was "Final Flight of The Osiris" from Animatrix (PAL) DVD. This clip has 13800 frames.

The avisynth encode refers to the usual avisynth/mpeg2dec3/vdub encode. In the second encoding test, avisynth bilinear resize was used to match with recode's resize algorithm.

Both avisynth and recode encode used the same ND codec for the encoding with obviously the same parameters. The time measured was the 1st pass encoding time since the 2nd pass in recode includes audio decoding and encoding.

Eventually, I find the results I had in mind (ie nero mpeg-2 decoder / resize was quite faster than avisynth/mpeg2dec3). Given the 15%-22% improvement is for the overall process where the mpeg-4 encoding costs a significant part, the differences showed here are far to be negligible.

Do these figures match with yours ? Maybe you have a newer version of mpeg2dec3 than the one I use (it's 1.10 from Nic) ?

[McoreD]

Originally posted by bobololo
Maybe you have a newer version of mpeg2dec3 than the one I use (it's 1.10 from Nic) ?

Wow thanks for the update, you mean this one (http://nic.dnsalias.com/mpeg2dec3.html) right?
I will try encoding with the updated dll. Thanks again.

Edit: Hmm..it is the latest versino Doom9.net have.