Computer only mid-resolution 2000-3000kbps - MPEG1 or MPEG2?

[huykin]

Setup: analog source, captured at x480, (adaptively) deinterlaced, resized to 448x336 or 512x384, target bitrate 2000-3000kbps, for computer only.

Question: Is there any advantage in using MPEG2 over MPEG1 in THIS case? (Assume the same CBR or VBR is used for both MPEG1 and MPEG2. For certain reasons I don't want to use MPEG4 formats.)

MPEG1 seems to have several advantages: faster encoding, lower CPU usage at playback, no additional software needed. But may be MPEG2 gives better quality or something else?

Thanks.

[huykin]

My original post was based largely on assumptions. Now I did some comparisons of MPEG1 & MPEG2. (Noisy analog source captured x480, adaptively deinterlaced & resized down precise bicubic to 448x336, encoded with TMPGEnc CBR 2500kbps High Quality.) Here is what I got:

- The quality of MPEG2 seems to be better than MPEG1 (less blocks).

- Encoding time is exactly the same.

- It may depend on the player/codec/settings, but playing MPEG2 usually takes less CPU than MPEG1! For example, this is true if I play MPEG1 in WMP 6.4 with the default MS codec, and MPEG2 in WMP 6.4 with Elecard 2.0 codec (deinterlacing/postprocessing/double IDCT off) or in PowerDVD 4.

So I guess those who say that MPEG1 is faster to encode & decode than MPEG2, in reality mean that VCD is faster than SVCD. (This is true, but it comes from the difference in resolution, not the difference between MPEG1 & MPEG2.) Well, I am going with MPEG2. The only remaining disadvantage of MPEG2 is the need for an MPEG2 codec, but this is easily solved with Elecard or PowerDVD.