MPEG Encoders

vonhosen wrote on 1/10/2004, 3:45 AM

I'm using Canopus Procoder at the minute (but I'm no pro). I've also got MainConcept, Ligos & TMPGEnc but prefer Procoder.

vectorskink wrote on 1/10/2004, 3:56 AM

Why procoder? Speed? Qua;ity? Both?

farss wrote on 1/10/2004, 4:02 AM

I tend to use the MC encoder that came with DVDA for mpeg-2, does the job well enough for what my clients want. I useTMPGEnc for mpeg-1 going to VCD because it does a noticebly better job on poor quality source and it'll batch encode and turn the PC off when its done.

JJKizak wrote on 1/10/2004, 6:21 AM

Main Concept just announced the availability of the MPEG 4 codec.
I assume this means it's better than the Mpeg 2 codec.

JJK

craftech wrote on 1/10/2004, 6:57 AM

Main Concept just announced the availability of the MPEG 4 codec.
I assume this means it's better than the Mpeg 2 codec.
=======================================================

MPEG-4 has better coding efficiency, which improves the quality of video and audio under 2MB/s.
Over broadband, IP and mobile networks this will play a significant role.
For a more in depth look:
http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_mpeg_compression_look/
John

vonhosen wrote on 1/10/2004, 11:26 AM

The main reason I prefer Procoder is quality.
It is reasoanbly fast (I always found TMPGEnc slower. Mastering quality setting is what slows down Procoder most). I use it's batch encodiing while I'm busy with other things. It's configurable, offers good PAL/NTSC conversion & is not just a MPEG encoder. It's a multi format converter.

StormMarc wrote on 1/10/2004, 11:50 AM

I like Procoder but it cost more than I want to spend on an encoder so I've been using TMPEG. Problem with TMPEG is speed -- it can be so slooooooooooow. Recently I bought Cinemacraft Basic ($58) and I am very happy so far with the quality. It's very fast and according to the company uses the same engine as their high end encoders (just alot less features - but everything I need like 2 pass VBR etc.

Marc

kentwolf wrote on 1/10/2004, 5:21 PM

I use the Main Concept stand-alone MPG 2 encoder (1.4).

Batch processes, fast, and reasonably priced.

StormMarc wrote on 1/10/2004, 7:21 PM

Kentwolf,

How the quality of the new Mainconcept compered to the one in Vegas? I was not happy with the Vegas version but heard they made some improvements in 1.4?

By the way Cinemacraft Basic also batch processes.

Marc

kentwolf wrote on 1/10/2004, 8:11 PM

>>...How the quality of the new Mainconcept compered to the one in Vegas?...

Looks great. The Vegas/DVD-A one, in my opinion, is just as good, but the stand alone encoder is significantly faster.

I have heard it said that the stand-alone is better, but I personally don't see the difference.

The stand-alone renders slightly faster than real time (can also capture in MPG2), so that's what I use.

Thank you.

Jameson_Prod wrote on 1/11/2004, 8:18 AM

The MainConcpet standalone encoder (v 1.4) is faster than Vegas. But.....you have to render your timeline in Vegas to an AVI to use the stand alone. So any time you save with the MainConcept you probably lose via Vegas. Of course AVI renders faster in Vegas than MPEG but still....two processes versus one.

As for quality....for an untrained video guy.....titles look a little clearer in the MC than Vegas. Video from a low end DV camera looks the same.

kentwolf wrote on 1/11/2004, 10:49 AM

>>...But.....you have to render your timeline in Vegas to an AVI to use the stand alone.

Yes. It is still 2 processes, yet it's still faster, in my opinion...

Jsnkc wrote on 1/11/2004, 11:09 AM

Sonic SD-1000 real time SDI encoder card. The results are amazing, blows any of the software endoders away.

riredale wrote on 1/11/2004, 3:25 PM

I've been using CinemaCraft, which is an excellent and fast encoder. Even with my little 1.3GHz T'bird it encodes at about 75% of real-time.

Many web sites a few years ago showed CinemaCraft and TMPGEnc to produce the best quality, but software performance is a moving target, so others may have caught up.

farss wrote on 1/11/2004, 5:50 PM

I'm sure it does, probably blows the bank manager away as well.
Just as a matter of interest any idea what the current price is?

StormMarc wrote on 1/11/2004, 6:36 PM

Anyone know if the 2 pass CBR mode in Cinemacraft Basic makes much difference? That's the first program I've seen a 2 pass mode for CBR.

Marc

riredale wrote on 1/11/2004, 10:15 PM

I have no experience with CCBasic, but the very notion of doing two passes for CBR throws me. What would be the point? After all, doing multiple passes with VBR is great because the encoder can look over the whole project on the first pass, and then make educated judgements about bit allocation on the second pass such that the entire project meets bitrate (and thus file size) expectations.

CinemaCraft is about $2k. Check for it on places like eBay from time to time.

vonhosen wrote on 1/11/2004, 10:33 PM

$1950 for CCE SP version,
CCE SP Pro I think they'll discuss the price with you over a demo.

http://www.cinemacraft.com/eng/product.html

stepfour wrote on 1/11/2004, 10:46 PM

"the very notion of doing two passes for CBR throws me. What would be the point?"

I'm wondering, too. It does sound rather strange. Just a guess, but, maybe it looks at the whole clip in the first pass and then encodes with the highest in-spec CBR necessary for the best quality that the clip can produce. If that is so, it might still save some space; e.g., if you're about to encode at 8K CBR, but 7k CBR will get you all the quality the clip can give.