Evaluating old and new MPEG encoders

[Bstansbury]

This post is directed to Baldrick. I've been asking several people on a couple of forums about an old "Post" that delt with "MPEG Encoder test". I've search all the forums and can no longer find the original comparison of the 3 major MPEG encoders, TMPGen, MainConcept, and CCE.

I had suggested to others that this comparison should be updated and I got a few feedbacks detailing the problems in even trying it. One key suggestion was to enlist your help to see if we could get something going.

The primary idea is NOT to have one person run subjective tests on all three (or more) encoders but to provide a small set of test case videos to anybody that post on this web site and get them to perform the testing. They would post the result at a fixed location on this web site and all the members could then provide their comparisons and vote on the best results.

The test cases should be some short video clips that were, 1. Simple everyday video that would represent the average low action video that should be used by the majority of people everyday. 2. The 2nd test case would be another Simple video but one that has content that is very difficult for MEPG encoders to handle, like smoke, but did not have high action scenes. 3. The last test case would be a High action video which would normally be very difficult to encode.

I think then that members who own one or more of the encoder could run the test cases using the encoding software they have and would normally use. They could do this for Low, Medium, and High quality encoding test cases.

The reason for all of this is that most of the members use MPEG encoders for many different reasons and want vastly different results. Some want to get their project done fast and only want a VCD or SVCD output. Others want the "Absolute best quality" but again they only want an SVCD. Finally, there are others that want the best quality and are willing to take the time and effort to produce a top quality DVD.

Once the tests are done and the tools used to create the results described, then there can be a permanent "Guide" posted that will allow all members to get "What they want",... out of "What they have". It will also allow others to mix and match or adjust their settings to get something in between a VCD and a DVD or what every they really need.

There are still the top three encoders, TMPGen, MainConcept, and CCE, but now we have many others that may provide very competitive results and therefore provide a better solution for those who have "Less Money", or "Less Time", or don't even have a DVD encoder. I have been using Ulead VideoStudio to produce and encode very good DVD videos and I think they look as good as those I made with TMPGen. However, the video I used was not a very difficult test case and so I really did not draw any final conclusions. I've also use ATI all in Wonder captrue cards and direct MPEG encoders. For some simple jobs, it may be good enough encoding.

In going through the various forums I see several other DVD Software that have the ability to encode to MPEG-1, and MPEG-2. Those members may be willing to sign up for testing at various settings. I thing one of the key elements if someone could provide 3 good test clips for encoding. These could be downloaded from the VCDHelp web site.

I look forward to your thoughs on such a project.

[ronnylov]

There is a clip available here:
http://www.tecoltd.com/enctest/enctest.htm

Scroll down on that page and you can download a DV clip TEST.AVI (80 Mbyte).

[SatStorm]

That you wish to do isn't so easy anymore.

If you try to approach the subject with price in mind, then TMPGenc is the top solution. CCE Basic is cheap but needs 3rd party applications to make most of the things TMPGnec is capable to do (not in the best way) by default. Mainconcept is far more expensive both, so the other excellent encoder, called ProCoder. And the best of all, CCE SP, is very - very expensive
If you try to approach the subject with quality in mind, then we are talking about personal taste: What means "best"? Who determines "best"?
For me for example, mosquito noise (CCE) is more annoying than occasional blockness (TMPGenc / Mainconcept).
But those blockness with TMPGenc at low bitrates in the static scenes, is also annoying compared Mainconcept / Procoder which are doing excellent job on this.
But on the other hand, I don't like the blurness of Mainconcept compared to the other encoders, which are looking sharper. And so on...
If you approach the subject with speed in mind, then CCE with avisynth is the faster, but at the same time Mainconcept as a standalone application is also fast (and more flexible IMHO). ProCoder also is fast

And so on (so many approaches for the same subject)...

Today, the only thing we can do and remain on train, is to present each encoder and point the plus and the minus it has based on general objervations and the so called "general needs".
And this is what we do all the time here.

[lordsmurf]

Excellent post, satstorm.

[Bstansbury]

Satstorm,... Thanks very much for your excellent post. You've hit the nail right on the head,... It's all about $$Price,.... Quality,... and Speed. So what it the right answer.

This is what I was trying to get at in my orginal post. Each person will choose a different direction. Some want the best price and wil live with what they get. Some want the ultimate in Quality and will only settle for the very best,... forger speed and price. Others are just in a hurry,.. and only want the fastest encoder.

I accept the comments you have make on each of the top three encoder,.. and you've tossed in Procoder as a fourth. But here is the problem. Every word you put down about each encoder is very subjective,.. and is really only your opinion on each encoder.

What I'm have suggested is a way that 1000's of people can SEE the results of testing each of these (and many more) encoders in action. Testing each of them on Quality, and speed,.. and then letting the 1000's
of people view the results and decide for themselves. I also suggested that they will also have the details of each tests along with the results. This allows them to do small changes to their systems to get the results closer to what they want.

Your post is the results of probably 100's if hot 1000's of hours of your personal time,... testing each of these encoders,... to get just what you want. Most of these people don't have access to any of the encoders and are trying to figure out which one to purchase and why. None of us can afford all of them. I have the old test version of Tmpgen but it has expired and won't do MPEG-2. I have the older verion 1.2 which still works but I really don't have any idea how out of date it is. The built in encoder in Videostudio seems to work fine,... but like you said,... who defines what is fine.

I still hope we can get something going where we can compare many test results on this web site.

Thanks for you post.

[SatStorm]

I think you didn't understand me correct

I didn't post my opinion about the encoders, but what is the average opinion in the forum about those encoders, based on the users reviews, I read over the years.

When I have a personal opinion about something, I add in the phrase something like "IMHO", "My opinion is", "Personally", etc. It is very clear I believe that way.

There are plenty user reviews about all those encoders in this and other forums. You can search for them and collect the infos you wish.

One problem is that not anyone can afford to buy all the encoders. Also, it is impossible for someone to learn 100% all the encoders.
Years ago, when there was 2 desent encoders, that was easy. Today they are at least 4 - don't count the variations.

Anyway, if you can manage for 1000 people to buy the final retail product, learn how to use it 100% and compare it, I'll be more than happy to see the results.
But 50 + 150 + 3000 + 1500 I think is too much money for most users of this forum (including me, my salary is about 680 euros per month....)

[vhelp]

hi guys.

I too remember that post. It was done some some in early 2003 or else in 2002,
that BJ_M. He had provided some sample clips of a BETAMAX Tape promo (or something
that he did on his own, if memory serves me) and used that source in his test
for us all to see here. I remembed it being a "flower" or something, and w/
some text to demostrate the crispyness or something. I think I may still have
those clips somewhere's on my HD.
.
But, he did do an excellent job on that test. And, I'd like for him (BJ_M) to
perform another test. Perhaps w/ Satstorms tip/suggestion above.

I haven't tried Mainconept yet though. Maybe I'll try it today :P

Good luck all, and I hope something can be worked out w/ BJ_M and other
here on a test scenario that works for all of us. I"d sure like to see some
more of othese kinds of interesting tests :P

Thanks guys,
-vhelp

[Bstansbury]

SatStorm,.. Now we are getting closer to understanding what I wanted to do. You are right again,... there are hundreds of posts on this site that have reviewed each encoder, and their comments are similar to the ones you've added above. However, as you indicated...

I didn't post my opinion about the encoders, but what is the average opinion in the forum about those encoders, based on the users reviews, I read over the years.

My point was that weather they are your opinion or those of others,... they are still opinions. What was in the original post that I was trying to find were the "Actual Video Results". In this way each of us can develop our "Own Opinion". Words from experts are great and give good guidance but they don't provide any "Reference Point" so you don't know where they are on the spread from "Quality,... Price,.... or Speed".

I was also not suggesting that anybody buy anything. I would like someone like "You", to select 3 volunteers who own TMPGen and ask them to encode a couple of test cases,.. such as fast action,... Explosions,.. Fire & Smoke,.. or just some normal video. The tests should include High bit rates and also some low bit rates. Then the results could be posted for everyone to see. Pictures are worth a 1000 words. I don't even care it they provide their opinion, but it would certanly be helpful.

This is a lot of work,... and that is why I have suggested getting people who are qualified and will "Volunteer" to do the encoding test. I would gladly volunteer for Ulead VideoStudio 7.0,... since that is what I have used for the last year. So far I think their MPEG encoder is pretty good. It is certanly faster than TMPGen and it is customizable and simple to use. I use it because it is what I have. I would gladly spend some more $$$$ for a better encoder,... if I could see that it would really be wortth the $$$$. I have the old version of TMPGen (1.2 Beta). Is the MPEG-2 compression of the new version much better than that old one????

As far as the other encoders, we might be able to get away with just one Volunteer for each encoder, and the test clips could be high quality .avi . We wouldn't need more than a couple of seconds of video,... it would just have to be a good test scene.

I look forward to your response.

[BJ_M]

this is the post you were asking about https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

i did this is 2002


i am doing a updated one now

sources:
1. mpeg from dvd
2. 3k digital files from a film (animation and real life sample)
3. DV material from camera source

render:
1. dvd compliant mpeg2 , high bit rate (avg. 7500) and low bit rate (avg 3000) ..

tools:

cce sp (latest version)
procoder 1.5
procoder 2
tmpgenc 2.59
main concept 1.4.2 (covers premiere, ulead, vegas, squeeze and a few others)


quality and speed and render samples will be posted - as well as gop readout and bit rate/Q measured




at this point i am open to suggestions about additonal encoders to add and just about anything else ..

[Baldrick]

I was just going to post that link after spending 3 minutes searching for it...I post it anyway
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113633&highlight=

[dc91gt]

might be new encoders out there, but CCE and mainconcept (1.4 w/2 pass) are still king of the hill. Tmpgenc too, but only if you have
the extra time to waste.

[disturbed1]

tools:

cce sp (latest version)
procoder 1.5
procoder 2
tmpgenc
main concept 1.4.2 (covers premiere, ulead, vegas, squeeze and a few others)

quality and speed and render samples will be posted - as well as gop readout and bit rate/Q measured

at this point i am open to suggestions about additonal encoders to add and just about anything else ..

You could include CCE Basic and ProCoder Express, since these compete on the same price point as TMPG.

ProCoder Express should offer the exact quality as ProCoder 2.0, since Canopus claims they use the same encoding engine.

[ronnylov]

A freeware alternative like QuEnc (or any ffmpeg based encoder) or bbmpeg would be intresting in the comparison.

[Sulik]

Would be nice to include ATI MMC as well (the MMC9 library can convert virtually any file to MPEG)

[BJ_M]

Would be nice to include ATI MMC as well (the MMC9 library can convert virtually any file to MPEG)

i cant do that one ---- but i can supply the source file to someone else

[adam]

I see you are going to test multiple versions of Procoder. Maybe you should include version 2.5 of CCE. It uses a slightly different encoding engine and some people, like myself, actually prefer the quality to later releases. 2.5 supposedly runs faster on AMD chips also.

[BJ_M]

I see you are going to test multiple versions of Procoder. Maybe you should include version 2.5 of CCE. It uses a slightly different encoding engine and some people, like myself, actually prefer the quality to later releases. 2.5 supposedly runs faster on AMD chips also.

not a problem

[Sulik]

I'd be happy to provide the ATI MMC encoded clips if you can provide the source material and encoder settings.