Tmpgenc 2.57-The best Mpeg 1&2 Encoder just got even bet

The BEST encoder just got better..

Maybe other people have also noticed.

Cutting/joining Mpeg2 & Mpeg1 mpegs now seems error free.

Awesome results with 2passVBR

plus I also discovered(this may not be new)

-You can de-multiplex the Vid & audio streams directly from VOBS using Mpeg Tools.

-You can encode directly from VOB to *.m2v files without making a project file(DVD2AVI) or de-multiplexing the VOB first.-acidently selected the *.vob file instead of the *.d2v last night, but it worked.!!! was a little slow though.

again........

[homerpez]

"BEST"?

Hardly... I still use older versions to make project files for CCE, and to encode audio, but otherwise...

To each his/her/its own.

[nfl2k2]

CCE 2.5 is better man. but tmpgenc is great for downloaded movies and stuff, better than all the other encoders though

I guess you guys are willing to settle for lower quality encodes of CCE, the rest of us are using Tmpgenc.

so are the following companies........

TMPGEnc has already been used for various solutions follows.
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for Sony(R) PlayStation2(R)
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for Microsoft(R) X-BOX(R)
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for Nintendo(R) GameCube(R)
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for SEGA(R) DreamCast(R)
- For DVD-Video authoring

[therick]

define best: if you mean slower and with a worse 2-pass VBR...then I guess TMPEGEnc is better

Your obviously some of these people which think because something costs more its better:-

CCE - $250 -crippled version
CCE - $2000 -the ok version
Tmpgenc + - $48 :P


A 2 pass VBR encode in TMPGenc will give you a better result than 5 passes in CCE!!

Give it a go try a sample

[therick]

I only have a 950 Duron but let's just say this:

encoding time for a 3 minute clip

1 pass in CCE = 3:21
1 pass in TMPEGEnc = 11:48

So for me there isn't really a comparison to make... :P

[homerpez]

Cost? Um... hehheh heh um, yeah... crippled, that's funny... yes, it is expensive... um...

CCE is Supreme Lord Emperor of software encoders (that I've seen so far).

TMPGEnc is good - for AMATUERS!

No seriously though, I have to rank them in that order, TMPGEnc does do fairly well with MPEG-1, basically what one doesn't do well, the other does well.

CCE: MPEG-2 Video, Multipass VBR

TMPGEnc: MPEG-1, Audio Encoding, Resize/Project files

This still hasn't changed in the last 50 or so versions of TMPGEnc, so I'm not too optimistic that TMPGEnc will become an "everything" solution any time soon...

[nfl2k2]

CCE kicks tmpgenc's ass in MPEG2. I can get a 4 pass done faster with better quality in the time tmpgenc does a 2 pass.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I wonder how many of those who say they prefer CCE actually have used it?

[nfl2k2]

uhh I've been using it for about a year now. I started using CCE when I joined these forums which was 364 days ago. I was using tmpgenc before then. Now it's dvd2svcd doing all the work for me but CCE still gets used, and produces much better quality. guess it's all in the eye of the beholder...

[therick]

I have been using CCE for 9 months...and it does destroy TMPEG's VBR time wise AND quality wise...

[bilbogod]

he he........... there's obviously a lot of sour grapes from those who aint able to take advantage of 720 x 576 res mpeg 1's with TMPGenc CQ mode. Unless anyone is actually using this res in CCE then I'll never be convinced that it looks comparable let alone better. (80 svcds CCE 4pass versus 8 masterpices kvcd style proves it to my eyes) . Hell you'll have more luck convincing the pope to kick a hole in a stained glass window than you will to give me that CCE crap)

[Chemcat]

I've used both TMPGenc and CCE for SVCD and CCE is faster and better, especially with motion scenes in my eyes. I do 5 pass on DVD rips utilizing DVD2SVCD like nfl2k2. Effortless and hardly discernable from the original DVD. Great for doing .avi conversions too.

there's obviously a lot of sour grapes from those who aint able to take advantage of 720 x 576 res mpeg 1's with TMPGenc CQ mode

No sour grapes, I'd much rather do a 5 pass SVCD at 480x480 or a CVD at 352x480 with an average bit rate of 1800+ kbps and know I'm going to get a great looking encode that looks like the original and exactly fill up 2 cds with 800 mgs each. To each his own though, whatever cooks your biscuit,

[mol3000]

i can never get cce to work right.... everytime i put a avi file in it to convert to mpeg2 it always says the avi needs to be at a certain resoution or bps (whatever) and even when i put a mpeg in there it just sits there and stalls....... something has to work first to be the best

[SatStorm]

Well well....
After 2 and a half years in the scene, I just discovered that I am an Amateur because I use TMPGenc in anything I do....

What to say... Thanks homerpez, you show me how stupid I am
I know now, that I don't know anything! Because If I knew, I would use CCE like the advance users! Like yourself for example! Thanks again!

Shit... And I just finished my final test with the movie SHREK, made manual (no fronters like the excellent dvd2scvd), with TMPGenc 2.57plus, CVD (352 X 576) @ 1150kb/s and 128kb/s stereo audio, ~90min on 1 CD, 2 pass VBR mode @ high quality, with amazing quality (no blocks) @ 5 hours (with my xp 1700), using the templates I intent to publish this week on VCDhelp.
But is seems, that because TMPGenc is for amateurs, there is no need for those templates... The advance users beside being rich, are also using CCE and only... So, there is no need for those templates....

Meanwhile, I have to focus and learn how to use CCE, because the same movie with the same specifics, looked like crap after 4 passes of CCE and DVD2SVCD. But if the experts said that CCE is the Supreme Lord Emperor of encoders, then I must be stupid not be able to succeed inferior results...
I have to learn anything from the begin now....

[mol3000]

SatStorm, if u have a good templates for dvd then send them to me... right now i am using ver a of tmpgen because even when i put a new ver (and 2.####) it still wont give me any mpeg 2 encoding time so i had to go way back to the old stuff

From one amateur to another Satstorm, I also get stunning results using Tmpgenc on everything except animation at low bitrates. Post your template so we can give it a go.


Like I said the BEST mpeg encoder just got better.

Dont some of you guys wonder why 3-5 passes in CCE is quicker than 2 passes in Tmpgenc??

and if CCE is so good

why these companies bother using Tmpgenc???


TMPGEnc has already been used for various solutions follows.
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for Sony(R) PlayStation2(R)
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for Microsoft(R) X-BOX(R)
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for Nintendo(R) GameCube(R)
- Creating MPEG data included in a Game for SEGA(R) DreamCast(R)

[SatStorm]

The main reason is because TMPGenc is based in JAPAN, so it is more easy for Hori Son to get contacts... Even M$ have a japan company there...

Look, CCE is a good program, so TMPGenc.

My tests 'till now show me that CCE is better with full CCIR 601 sources, while TMPGenc is better with lower resolutions. This is not secret, read the history file of TMPGenc. Hori Son himself admit it and promise to fix it in the near future. So, for DVD backup, CCE is better but for XXX X 576/480 sources, TMPGenc (IMO) is far better. DVB transmissions most of the times are not CCIR or even 1/1D1.... So, in my case, TMPGenc is a better solution.

There are some exceptions:
CCE is better with pictures full of colors, TMPGenc still create blocks when it has to handle many colors the same time. I have many music videoclips, full of colors, which TMPGenc simply can't encode well. But those videos ain't many.

For low bitrates, TMPGEnc is better overall. CVDs and low resolution SVCDs (like Sefy's SxVCD) are better IMO with TMPGenc than CCE (when you use 2 PASS).

They are OVERALL better. I may define BETTER a different way some other users do. The true is that we have 2 different prospectives for the subject here:
CCE produce excellent picture when that is possible, and it has no problem to sacrifice a bit the picture in extreme situations. So, with CCE you have good picture when that is possible.
TMPGenc do the opposite: It can **** up the whole encoding just to make a bit better that ******* certain scene. So, if a videoclip for example, 5 min long, have 4.30 min of static movie and 30sec of extreme action, IF you use 2PASS with big difference between min/average/max (let say 0min/1200average/2400max), gonna **** the whole encoding just to give that ******* 2400max to the extreme scene....
This is another reason many users find CQ modes better 2 pass ones.
If you use CQ, then the encoder gonna encode the typical scenes as it is possible (no need to steal bitrate to give to other scenes) and the extreme scenes gonna be close to the max and whatever that gonna produce. If the bitrate is lower than what it needs, then there gonna be blocks. So, that mode can produce 97% perfect encodings and 3% horrible in a movie. It is a different prospective also here.......

Other issues:
CCE works overall better with PAL than TMPGenc. It is in a way logical: Japan use NTSC, so most of the tests for TMPGenc are for NTSC not PAL. If I was Tsunami, I'll do my new stuff with NTSC material which I know and once in a while I would publish a version with optimazations for PAL.
If you publish a version each month (like tsunami do with tmpgenc), you don't have time for many things. You don't even have sence of time....

CCE from the other hand, publish an update once in a while. It has all the time to optimise things. And before you shout: "There is no need for updates, CCE is perfect", let me remind you that CCE is full of bugs, not as an encoder, as a program.
TMPGenc has much less bugs as a program, even mpegtools in this version rocks!

I strongly sense that next version, TMPGEnc 2.58plus or whatever, gonna be a PAL optimised version. Then, the suprise gonna be like the first time we used 2.50...

About my templates, soon I'll send them to VCDhelp for anyone interest. They gonna be only for PAL and only for the latest TMPGenc plus version. For NTSC, we gonna see...

[dvd2svcd]

@Satstorm: Very accurate and good post and I agree on what you say on both CCE and TMPGEnc. Living in PAL world doing DVDs I always use CCE. If my source was other I think I'd go for TMPGenc. Btw, In my tests between CCE -pass VBR and TMPGenc CQ I notice that both allocate extra bits at the same spots (as one would expect) however, there's a wider spread between min and max in tmpgenc than in cce. To make CCE have same spread you can adjust the BIAS in CCE from 30 to eg 20 or lower, that way demanding scenes will get more bits and vice versa.

[SatStorm]

@dvd2svcd: It is very positive to see some power users and developers to reply my posts! Thanks!
One favor from you if is possible: Keep support both encoders to your excellent fronter and if you can, experiment a bit with DVB sources.
DVD is good, but DVB soon gonna be everywhere!