Using External encoders - slower?faster?better?

CrazyRussian wrote on 1/12/2004, 7:34 AM
I've just read "External Encoders" post, and almost posted this there, but I think it should be in its own thread.
Guys, and I'm not juding, doubting or critiszing anyone, can you explain your process of using external encoders, and how it works out faster for you please. I just dont see how it can be done. Frameserving discussed later, this portion is about running 2 renders: first in Vegas rendering to uncompressed AVI, second render in your external MPEG encoder. Could this really be faster than running ONE rednder in vegas right into MPEG??? In my experience, if I have 2 hours project, with some effects, dissolves, crosfades, some special effects... vegas render so 2 hours project comes out in MPEG format in about 3 hours. I would expect it to render into uncompressed AVI ... at real time speed?? that's 2 hours. So, my externl MPEG encoder must encode 2 hours video in an 1 hour to beat overal rendering time straight from vegas, this assuming you'll be by your PC wating for vegas to finish rendering, and start external encoder right away, if you're not... then more time waisted. Plus you need that much space for "middle" product (avi render file from vegas) on the hard drive... it just doesnt seem logical. Please explain to me what i'm missing.

Frameserving seems to be alot more practical. No middle file need, and no midle render either, no waitign by your PC for one render to finish and start another one. Can you guys explain what needed for frameserving and how it's done. I'm particulary interested if vegas can frameserve into CC and how it is done. Can multi pass VBR be done with frame serving? Another variable to frameserving/external encoding: is final pruduct REALLY NOTICABLY that much better to make you jump all those hoops? Can someone post a clip rendered in vegas and same clip rendered in external encoder??? I just like to see "the difference". I, as I'm sure many others, would love to raise picture quality of videos we produce, and I was looking at CC for a long time, actually did couple renders with it... but hated the project flow, so I dumped it, plus picture quality was not any better from one made in vegas (of course source was Digi8 tape from Sony camcorder, decent, but far from perfect).

So, i guess my question is, for those of us (me including) working with VHS, camcorder and DV tapes, COULD there be any benfit using external encoder??? Would picture look any beter from external encoder vs. from Vegas???

TIA

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/12/2004, 8:03 AM
An external hardware encoder will always look better, and be faster. Some software encoders might look better if done in CinemaCraft, TMPEG, or MainConcept's stand alone depending on source material, because each encoder looks at various footage differently. Vegas had the best encode out there for software for a while, now it sits right in the middle of the group. CinemaCraft sure looks good on normal motion, well lit subjects, but seems to falter in fast motion with an abundance of dark footage. It's faster than MC in Vegas too. Most of the MPEG encoders out there have a demo version. You might try encoding a 5 minute piece of various colored and motion footage, along with color bars and other test media.
RBartlett wrote on 1/12/2004, 9:42 AM
Satish's FrameServer tool

There is a processing penalty in going through a frameserver that can justify some program lengths going to an intermediate file (DV,MJPEG or uncompressed).

Satish's frameserver does support seeks on the same "Render As" session. So 2 or multipass VBR is achieved without any extra fiddling.

External hardware encoders are marvellous and if at the latest generation, and possibly at the higher end, can look as good as laboriously processed software codecs. However motion estimation is weak or completely missing in their designs so if you are trying to get HQ into 4-5Mbps, you might see some macroblock artifacts on some footage.

If you start off with DV, 4:2:0 or 4:1:1, then your DVD encode is going to have a job being anything like the film boys do. However as a playback medium for consumer set top decks, it'll be like nothing before it. Truly marvellous.

MainConcept 1.4 is said to be fast, multi-pass and HQ. TMPGEnc (pegasus-inc) delivers but takes some confidence runs. MediaChance have a TMPGEnc that is more friendly to the casual encoder, cheap too and attractive for DVDLab/DVDLabPro folks.

Some folks also use analogue or DV inputs on set top DVD recorders and then extract the MPEG-2 from them for use in editors. Just watch your extractor gets the timing right. Many set top DVD recorders use the same custom chips in them that you get in PCI cards (sub $500) to hardware encode. It is these that I'm wary of when I want quality, not so much the Sonic Solutions / Canopus etc hardware encoders.

C-Cube, Zoran, Stream Machine and SigmaDesigns make general purpose encoders that live in the lower end devices. I don't do more than one DVD in any two days, so I encode overnight and see what I've got by the morning. I've only used Vegas' internal MC MPEG-2 coder, although I've tried TMPGEnc for MPEG-2 and liked it on my uncompressed D1 sources.

OT:
Where I've used lightly compressed MJPEG (PICvideo) I've tended to have crashes using Vegas' internal codec or Satish's frameserver. Probably a bug in the PICvideo codec, but sometimes it works and that helps my 4:2:2 keys when it does. I can't always fit my project online in uncompressed format.