What do you have to say about Canopus Procoder?

[mnfesq]

I have been using CCE SP 2.50 and 2.66 with a great deal of satisfaction for some time but was interested in trying out Canopus Procoder 2.0. Can anyone that has used both encoders give me their impressions of the Canopus encoder as compared to CCE and let me know its relative strenths and weaknesses? Thanks.

Edit: When I first posted this, I had my board settings set to list only the posts from the last 30 days so I didn't see any posts about the Procoder. Once I realized this, I went back to see what other posts there have been about the Procoder and i still think I would like a response to this post because the other posts do not address this question specifically.

However, I can see that it would be helpful if I explained that my use gnerally involves converting DVD's to SVCD or, sometimes, re-encoding DVD's from 6-7 gigs down to 2.4 gigs using DVDRebuilder.

[Mug Funky]

procoder IMHO isn't up to the standard of CCE. i think it's targeted more towards the transparency bitrates (>7 mbps) rather than the SVCD or DVD5 type bitrates.

if you want an encoder that excels at dangerously low bitrates, give QuEnc a try - i'm currently encoding grainy-as-hell handheld interlaced DV at 3.2mbps full D1 PAL, and it's coming out beautifully where other encoders would give you a sea of wibbly blocks. really amazing.

(man, i feel like i'm advertizing here).

i'm not aware of any formal comparisons between CCE and QuEnc (or procoder for that matter) at the bitrates you suggest, but i'd say CCE and QuEnc will come out about even, and procoder will not perform as well.

however, i haven't used procoder for a while, and it might have had it's encoder tweaked significantly since then, but i doubt it. if you already have CCE, then it's not really worth buying procoder if all you're doing is DVD backup.

[freelock7]

The best for DV source.
Create a beautiful soft picture with a good antialiasing effect.
Compared to CCE, it is slower but more practical -create a DVD MPEG2 compliant file ready for authoring.

[moita]

Mug Funky:

however, i haven't used procoder for a while, and it might have had it's encoder tweaked significantly since then, but i doubt it.

Definitely you should give Procoder 2 a try. In my opinion it is much better than CCE 2.50/2.66, especially with bitrates around 3000~3500. And if the source is interlaced... oh poor CCE! However I can't compare it with QuEnc, because I've never used it. The weak point on Procoder is its speed (or lack of it), but it is much easier to use than CCE.

From my experience:
- interlaced sources or lower bitrates (3000~3800)-> Procoder 2 (quality)
- higher bitrates (>4200) -> CCE (faster and with similar quality compared to CCE)
- really important stuff -> Procoder 2 (quality)

But honestly, Mug Funky is right, if you own CCE then it is insane to buy Procoder (it is far from being cheap).

Note: my experience is based on PAL sources only.