TMPGenc 2.00 is out!

[lmichiel]

Hi All

Please check the TMPGenc site, they now have a 2.00 version which no longer is promoted as a beta version.

I can't download it because I get errors and the site is now extremely slow....

cheers
Leo

[homerpez]

Sounds like preperation to relase a $$COSTLY$$ version soon. That message on their site almost sounded mean!

Is there still a timed MPEG-2? (Crack thereof)?

I hope they're not cutting off their nose to spite their face...

Maybe if it's DIRT CHEAP, I'd buy a "full version"... (HINT HINT)

[ScooterMyth]

Well you can count on it NOT being "dirt cheap". He's gone done the licensing road and I'm sure he'll have to charge accordingly.

BTW - This program has had a "reverse" improvement history. Versions 12 and 12a have MUCH better quality and speed. Every version since these has been a further slide downhill.

Switch to AVISYNTH and CCE 2.5 and you will have better quality and MUCH faster encodes.

Checkout the guides at:

http://www.doom9.org

and visit the forums there for expert help.

[septor]

http://www.tmpgenc.com/files/TMPGEnc-2.00.29.113.zip
keep trying there for it
I got it after a loooooooooonnnnnnnngggggggg wait

[vlk3]

beta 12a better quality ? It is stupid legend, of course. Maybe better than beta12c, but not better than beta 12e-j

beta12j beat beta12a in quality, and of course there is lot of bugfixes. There is no need for shitty old beta12a, almost one year old. I dont know who found that beta12a is best, but it is simply not true. After almost one year of encoding is it sure - newest TMPEG is the best

[zzyzzx]

Exactly what is so much better about the new version?

[lmichiel]

Well I've tried it but I can't see any differences. The 30 day time limit on MPEG2 is still on.

Because it no longer is presented as a beta version, I'm afraid we'll have to start paying in the near future so hold on to your old versions.

On the site there is now a statement saying that hosting any old copy of TMPGenc on other sites is not permitted. This says to me, they mean business and want to see $$$$

cheers
Leo

[Bullworth]

After all this time, they're finally going to release it. What other improvements besides unlimited MPEG2 support can we expect from it?
How much would it be expected to cost? Hundreds or thousands like CCE?
I think I'm just going to stick with the betas I have since they do a really good job.
What else for converting AVIs to MPEG. I used to use Ulead Studio 4.x but it was way too slow. Any other ideas now that good freeware is going away?

[spidey]

For avi to mpg - aside from an mpg encoder - you can use Sonic Foundry's Vegas Video It has worked awesome. And, what would take 6 hours in TMPG, in Vegas may take 1 hr. It has the Ligos engine in it, and includes unlimited Mpeg2 encoding.

[The_Flash]

I'm with ScooterMyth. Any other way would be uncivilized!

[Jeomite]

I'm pretty sure TMPGEnc Pro will have a BIG speed improvement for encodings. It's kinda like an Ace up their sleeve. They have no reason to make the "freeware" that better. So they made TMPGEnc Pro to have a BIG speed improvement, rather impleanenting it in the TMPGEnc (freeware). This gives consumers a good reason to buy the 'Retail/Registered' Version of TMPGEnc Pro.

Just a theory...

[homerpez]

Remember what I said about cutting off their nose to spite thier face?

Watch how much they want for TMPGEnc, and watch how soon an "Average Joe" creates a freeware prog to beat it's quality.

TMPGEnc did this to others (nobody talks about Ulead products anymore, he he), and the same will be done to TMPGEnc should it cost too much $$$ !

BTW: The "rumor" on MPEG-2 quality in TMPGEnc 12 BETA is no myth. They really did break the VBR function in all remaining versions. This might have been intentionally, to make betas slow?... hmm...

That's the plain old Beta 12, not 12a.

[dabar101]

I use V. 12I is thereany reason for me to change, I have had no trouble up to this point what will the new version do for me?

[biney59]

I use to use TMPGenc, but i switched to Ulead, BECAUSE IT IS REALLY, REALLY FASTER. Does anyone know if the new TMPGenc is faster, if it is, then I might start using it again.

[jakecb]

DOWNLOADED 2.0 IT IS MUCH FASTER.

[Anonymous65]

As for speed, anybody that doesn't have a P3 or P4 will not see Tmpeg faster than the other encoders out there. However, with an Intel CPU, Tmpeg is very fast.

[homerpez]

That figures...

So it's useless for my AMD 1GHz at home, but if I managed to cart 3-6 GB source files to work, I could process it there in 5 seconds! (Dual P4, 1.7 Ghz, 1 GB RAM)!

Sure sign a company is about to sell out: Optimize for the most expensive processor brand (Intel).

Surely, if you are willing to waste money on a P4, you'll waste money on TMPGEnc too!

P.S. - I find it hard to believe they can't optimize the "normal" TMPGEnc more in the filters department... similar filters run twice as fast in Photoshop, they're obviously holding back something for the "full" version...

[vcdwizard]

Video editing is just becoming mainstream, I bet in less than a year, More companies will be churning up software that will make the current leaders pale in comparison. When that happens, I personally do not mind paying *UNDER* $100 bucks for full featured, fast, excellent quality encoder.

[SatStorm]

Well, just finished burning my first movie encoded by beta 2.0...
Impressions: Use 12 (not 12a) or 12H...
Beta 2 is fast as 12j, but the quality ain't the same any more....
I don't understand how people find out that 12i or 12j is better than 12H or 12...
beta 12 has great VBR and good picture. Beta 12H has great detail and colors. VBR is less good than beta 12
Beta 12i and j simply sucks... It creates blocks. MANY blocks...
Just encode one interlace source with those 3 betas, and you will see....