Encoder comparison Mainoncept vs CCE vs TMPGenc

[albatros]

Hello,

I am just starting my own comparison of encoders.
First I would like to say that I don't know if I am doing it good.
Second I want to post my first impressions and maybe someone can add some interesting experience.

I use TMPGenc, CCE, Mainconcept encoder.

To compare frames I use VirtualDub MPEG2 version.

I have transfered one or more minutes of DV from camera.

Source is in PAL 720x576, interlaced.

Source is in motion, backgound snow.

The source is encoded in CBR in 8000 Kbps bitrate.

Wherever I can I do CBR 2 pass, by now I only find it in CCE SP.

Ok. first look:

the frames in CCE have most details like the text on the moving objects, especially when the objects are not so close.

the frames in MC are also detailed very close to CCE but I feel CCE more close to oryginal.

the text on the frame I have compared is unreadable in TMPGenc.

BUT!!!

the frames are sometimes compared in one encoder type P to in other encoder type I and sometimes to B type frame depending how the same frame the encoder generated. I dont really have idea if this counts.

Moreover the color especially red is the closest to the source encoded in TMPGenc. In CCE and MC the red is more orange (lighter or more yellow). In both cases.

Besides in all encoded videos the playback on PC is not as smooth as from avi but maybe it is becouse of PC and players and ...???

Does anybody have time to do tests like this. Maybe we can compare results.

[ronnylov]

Normally a frame type B looks worse than a frame type P and I.
So it would be more fare to compare frames of the same type, or to compare the average quality at normal playback.

I did a similar comparison between Mainconcept, CCE, Canopus Procoder, TMPGEnc Plus and Ligos LSX encoder. My source was from a VHS-C camcorder in interlaced PAL format, 704x576 encoded to DVD at 8 mbit/s CBR video.

To my help I used an avisynth plugin to calculate the SSIM value when compared to the original video. Get the ssim plugin here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/reservoir/avisynth.html

Here are my results:

Average SSIM (0-100 where 100 is equal to original)
Mainconcept 1.4: 82.81
Procoder 1.5: 81.39
CCE 2.66.01.07: 79.06
TMPGEnc Plus 2.521.58.169: 77.57
Ligos LSX 3.5: 76.87

When I did the ssim comparison I did it on separated fields because the video was interlaced.

As you can see Mainconcept was the winner. I have not tested at lower bitrates yet but at high bitrates and interlaced video at constant bitrate I recommend Mainconcept 1.4. Watching it on TV I found Mainconcept 1.4 sharper and more detailed than Procoder.

I guess the result may be different with tweaking of settings, other bitrates and by different sources but for me this was a help to choose an encoder for this project I was working on.

[jimmalenko]

I, along with many other people here, are very sceptical about encoder comparisons using still frames. Unfortunately, still frame comparisons do not tell the full story because we are encoding motion. It is how the entire clip looks that is important, not blockiness in still pictures. I applaud you for trying though.

[SatStorm]

TMPGenc for example is notorius for the blockiness it produce in static motion backgrounds. To overide this issue, you have to rise the minimum bitrate very high (this also explains why the default minimum setting on the DVD templates, are set up to 2000kb/s). Those blockness on the static mostion backgrounds, which is a huge issue for Cartoons for example, is why I don't suggest 2 Pass VBR encodings anymore with TMPGenc plus, and suggest other encoders for those kind of projects.
But I do believe that all the advance enthusiasts of this hobby, agree with me that TMPGenc produce the best sharpness of all the other encoders - or, to put in different - it seems that TMPGenc smooth less the picture, when it encodes to MPEG 1 / 2.

Mainconcept is not the best encoder, but it is the best alternative for the TMPGenc users, because seems more familiar to them. Those 2 encoders use about the same terminology on the various options and has about the same options, given in a different way of course.

Back to quality:
Mainconcept has a blurness when you encode at lower framesizes. Less - to no - blocks also, but the blurness is something more irritating for my eyes than few macroblocks (on the background). I'm a spoiled person, I prefer the sharpness!
IMHO this is the only minus of Mainconcept about the quality it offers compared with TMPGenc. Beyond that, it is a "new" standalone application, and it needs more flexibility. In other words, you can't simply load anything "as is" and encode with mainconcept, like you do with TMPGenc. But this is not a quality issue..

I can't say much for procoder, really. Seems to be inbetween mainconcept and TMPGenc, but somehow doesn't have something more to offer than those 2 encoders. Some people really like it, and I bet they have their reasons. Personally, there is something about this encoder I don't really like...


CCE from the other hand, is the best encoder, hand down. But: Without avisynth you can't use it for real. Many of the benefits CCE has, are based on the abilities of the avisynth. It is incredible what CCE with avisynth can succeed together.
When, of course, you use avisynth with TMPGenc (something that I do only for testing and rarely, I really don't like avisynth, I'm a stupid GUI person with special interest to solutions that have preview fuctions....) and compare the results with CCE, then CCE is again the winner in quality terms, but the difference isn't that big. Less 5% IMHO. But the speed difference is great...

Talking about speed, Mainconcept is fast. Faster TMPGenc. But this speed seems to be there, only on shorter projects. When you encode 3 - 4 hour projects in 2 Pass mode, then the difference compared TMPGenc's 2 Pass mode, isn't that huge. This is a strange thing with mainconcept, probably an non optimised inside thing, which soon gonna eliminate. I guess..

[disturbed1]

There's more opinions than there are encoders

My favorite 2, ProCoder Express and TMPG.

ProCoder does a nice job on interlaced material, and the speed isn't too bad either. An hour of DV footage takes ~3 hours to encode using highest quality 2pass VBR on my aging P4 1500.

TMPG used to be my #1, but not anymore, it's #2.

For clean sources (DVD backup) ProCoder may not be the best choice. It seems to use a type of built in noise reduction, which is why I think most people don't like it, and why I do.

I've never liked CCE's ability to handle interlaced material. It's just not a good field based encoder. But low bitrate frame based encoding is pretty good. Has a neat feature, instead of blocking (like TMPG) it puts clipped noise in the high motion areas. Annoying to me, but others seem to like it. Plus I can never get that damn quality slider adjusted just right, it's always too much ringing or too much mosquito noise, never found the perfect balance, put the slider from 15-65, 5 point increments. Spent hours and hours editing the VAF file, None were good enough.

Haven't used Mainconept's MPEG encoder enough to give an opinion. The standalonce does fast MPEG 2 MPEG encodes, even when changing resolutions. I didn't get great quality from it, but I didn't adjust any settings in detail. If I used Premier Pro, then I'd learn this encoder. Vegas uses the same encoder, but seems to be a few updates behind compared to Premiere.

I wish Ligos would of continued working on LSX. This was/is a great encoder, with more work, I think it could be #1.

Don't know what Panasonic was smoking when they made their newest encoder, but it must of been something powerfull. The MPEG2 encoder just blows. Terrible quality, awfull speed.

[Gazorgan]

I used to be a TMPGEnc fan. Now that I'm converting my legacy AVI captures to DVD, I've changed. TMPGEnc is erroring out on about 40% of my conversions. They all test out 100% in vdub, but it still errors. Procoder never errors.

Procoder is just awesome for batch encoding, very slick options. It's downfall is it's not quit as intuitive as TMPG (took me forever to figure out 1/2 D1 resolution, and then it's so amazingly simple to do once I figured it out!), and it doesn't give an option for WAV audio (whcih is okay, BeSweet is better anyway). 26 clips of 22 minutes each took 46 hours for 2-pass VBR with resizing. Quality is as good as the source (which is as good as it can get).

Mainconcept is okay, I jsut like the Procoder GUI better.

CCE I never like, just too clunky, despite being 'faster'.

[disturbed1]

[quote="Gazorgan"

Procoder is just awesome for batch encoding, very slick options. It's downfall is it's not quit as intuitive as TMPG (took me forever to figure out 1/2 D1 resolution, and then it's so amazingly simple to do once I figured it out!), and it doesn't give an option for WAV audio (whcih is okay



[/quote]

In ProCoder -

Just change the width and height to 352x480(576) for 1/2 D1.

Select MPEG VIDEO+Wave file

In ProCoder Express-

[marshalljames]

Anyone else use the Xing Encoder,only does mpeg1 but is very fast very reliable.
And can make mpeg1 files from postage stamp size to better than a lot of mpeg2 files.128k.384k,600k,Film.PAL,NTSC,stream works vcd etc.
And since TMPEG DVD Author will accept mpeg1 files you can often get better results using mpeg1 than 2(IMO).

[Gazorgan]

Dang, need to look in the advanced tab more anyway. Actually I Batch encode the WAV's after I've stripped them out, but for onesy's that will work, Tnx.

As to MPEG1? Get real!!! It's at least 2x as big as a corresponding MEPG2. And the Audio is just wasteful. Why not make the aduio complient so TAD doesn't HAVE to re-encode it? Look, a 2-pass MPEG2 in 352x240 with 128 MP2 audio that is the same size as a VCD is quite superior in quality. Make one and compare sometime.

[disturbed1]

You can batch encode to wav too.

If you're creating a drop box (ProCoder), set up a custom template.

If you're creating a watch folder (Express), set up a single encode, you have to let it complete, then use that template in your history.

You can edit the XML templates by hand too, they're located in

C:\Documents and Settings\YOUR USER NAME\Application Data\Canopus\ProCoder Express\History

[marshalljames]

As to MPEG1? Get real!!!

Obviously you haven't capped to much.(been capping since 1998)
If you did you would know that mpeg1 files I'm talking about are ten fold above vcd(VCD sucks so does Divx and the rest).The only problem is that the audio track is an mp2 not the best.but many mpeg2 files use mp2 soo....
I have DVD's made with mpeg1 file that are of better quality than mpeg2 files.Mpeg1 is not synonomous with vcd.vcd is only one use of mpeg1 and a low mpeg1 at that......

[albatros]

I think the standard on the market is MPEG2 with DVD. Someone has thinked it over I suppose. Come on.. this post was to try different MPEG2 DVD encoders and compare results preferably the ones in the subject.

[ronnylov]

Strange that you say mpeg-1 is better than VCD when VCD actually is encoded with MPEG-1... Anyway if comparing mpeg-1 I think Procoder or TMPGEnc will both give great results. I had some strange pulsing effect when I tired to encode mpeg-1 with mainconcept encoder (maybe I used wrong settings or something). But mpeg-1 is limited to VCD resolution on DVD and a bitrate below 1856 kbit/s and strictly only CBR is allowed.

You'll get better results with mpeg-2 with VBR and half D1 resolution. Normally I prefer highest resolution and higher bitrates and if needed I split to several DVD's. I like high quality more than high compression. And when encoding my home videos I need to encode to interlaced format for best quality when watched on TV so mpeg-1 is not an option because it does not support interlacing.

[Gazorgan]

Capping since 98? How Quaint. Gotta love MOV format then?

MPEG1 files are 10 fold above VCD? You can barely get 1.8x the bitrate and stay in DVD specs. You can't possibly back that up so don't bother trying, especially talking about 600k postage stamps. I don't think you can convince anyone on this board that MPEG1 is better than MPEG2(with teh exception of certain low-res, low-bitrate clips, and what's the point with DVD?).

Last time I counted I had about 3000 hours of caps.

[albatros]

Please what do you think of creating post with subject MPEG1 to MPEG2 comparison. Please follow this subjects.

[Skynet107]

I've uses all the programs you tested, and I still like CCE over ever encoder I have tried. When you use AVISynth with CCE the results are amazing. I am totally baffled how anyone can argue against CCE but I guess it is a very subjective thing.

[tigerman8u]

I've been a big fan of Tmpgenc upto about 10 months ago. I still love Tmpgenc Plus and Tmpgenc Dvd author. But for straight conversions Mainconcept can't be beat for speed and IMO the quality is every bit as good as CCE and Tmpgenc. Everybody has their favorite for a reason, but after using CCE, Tmpgenc Plus and Mainconcept I give Mainconcept the overall winner for speed and quality is as good as CCE and Tmpgenc.

[vcdforme]

Can't say for Mpeg2, but for VCD(mpeg1) Tmpgenc kills Mainconcept.
Using each programs' built in template for VCD, there's
no question Tmpgenc is best.
Sorry, never tried CCE.

[OneCardShort]

albatros wrote:

Moreover the color especially red is the closest to the source encoded in TMPGenc. In CCE and MC the red is more orange (lighter or more yellow). In both cases.

The reason why the color was different on CCE and MC encoders maybe the luminance settings. Tmpgenc has a function in the mpeg settings under the Quantize matrix tab called Output YUV data as Basic YCbCr not CCIR601 that states it is to be checked for DV footage. Normally this is unchecked by default and I assume this is the way you encoded since the color looked the same. There are threads here that have said this should never be checked even with DV footage as it only compresses the luminance further. DV footage I have encoded has had best results with this setting unchecked, the colors were like the source.

For CCE the luminance setting is found under Template, standard, video. On mine the default setting was 16-235 which produced color changes from the source like you described. When I set it to 0-255 it kept the colors accurate.

MainConcept I have only used once to encode straight to mpeg from a DV source, but I did check Input video is RGB 16-235 under the Advanced Video Settings for the mpeg encoder and this seems to have kept the colors accurate on my tv.

Overall I prefer Tmpgenc for ease of use and setup when encoding captured avi's and frameserving edited video from vdub. But CCE with avisynth is the only way to go when converting pal to ntsc IMO.

[proxyx99]

I've tested couple encoders as well and for the ease of use and overall quality I chose MC 1.4 as my main piece. When working with NLE I often use Pinnacle Edition 5.5 which is superb in encoding MPEG2. Both Procoder and TMPEG apply some blurring to static backgrounds. It looks OK but is definitely less sharp then other enc. I've seen some good samples done with CCE and no doubt it belongs to the top. Very good overall picture plus a very "natural" look. Never used it though (except for some brief tests). The differences between encoders are not that big that one would dismiss a specific one totally. Every enc. has its pros and cons. MC 1.4 is my favourite though for speed, ease of use and picture quality that is really very good and sharp. I hoped that Procoder (as the name suggests) will outperform MC and that has never materialized. Neither in speed nor quality. It is a matter of preference what "feels right" at a specific moment or for a specific operator. My picks are MC 1.4 and Edition 5.5 (good balance in quality, speed, color and detail rendering - which reminds me of some CCE samples). I think that for an experienced user CCE may easily be one of the top picks.

[nexus123]

I like mainconcept if I'm in a hurry it's just damn fast I can do a full movie thats around an hour and 20 minutes long in about 3 hours. Plus it does batch encode. But.... it doesn't have the ability to lower the vcd bitrate (to squeeze a movie onto one cd) like tmpeg plus does. I also do alot of cartoons I don't care what the quality is but I like to jam at least 10 20 minute episodes onto one cd at about 200 bits/s which is acceptable for me. I haven't tried cce or ?procode? was that the name of it, but I intend to now. Do either of them have the option to lower the bitrate to do a little sqeezin?

[sherlock]

As a Avid DVD Creator and being a Video editor for a studio in Vancouver I would have to say that CCE SP 2.67 + AVISynth are hands down the Highest Quality way to produce Mpeg2 DVD Files...I can even get great results encodeing to Mpeg2 DVD useing a Bitrate Lower than 3000kbs when useing the Right AVISynth filters and My own custom Matrix...I do agree that CCE doesn"t allways handle Interlaced Content very Well but on the Rare occations that I actually have an Interlaced source I generally end up useing the Bob de-interlacer which makes the Frames Progressive which really helps with the Image Quality, it takes time to learn how to tweak AVISynth and CCE together to Produce awesome results..At My work we have Hardware Mpeg encoders that cost over $5000 and I still get Better results useing CCE with Progressive sources.....Cheers

[cosmin]

I run into this thread while wandering on these forums, and I want to say this is a very interesting discussion! I liked especially the SSIM comparisons posted by Ronnylov.

I'd be curious about some opinions on the newer encoders. I understood that ProCoder 2.0 is better than 1.5, and CCE 2.69 handles interlaced content better than 2.66.

It's also interesting to notice that some encoders are better at handling progressive content (for the people mostly interested in encoding movies), others are better at interlaced content (for the people mostly interested in encoding DV or sports), others are better at handling low-bitrate content (for VCD/CVD/SVCD).

[lordsmurf]

Best quality, no filtering: PROCODER
Best quality, filtering: TMPGEnc Plus

Blurry: MainConcept
Adds noise, all hype: CinemaCraft (CCE)
Slow, outdated: Ligos (LSX)

It's hard to beat the quality of PROCODER at Mastering settings.
It's hard to beat the speed/quality of the filters in TMPGEnc.

MPEG-1 is better than VCD specs. VCD is 1150k MPEG-1.
But MPEG-1 can do much better. The 1850k max DVD spec
is perfect for that resolution, adequate allocation of bits.

If you use crap for source (Divx, downloads, etc), your results
may vary. Some encoders were not made to handle junk sources.

[Skynet107]

Adds noise, all hype: CinemaCraft (CCE)

you need to get your eyes checked. All hype? ooohkay.

[vhelp]

.
.

I've done a few comparisons w/ TMPG vs. CCE vs. MC encoders.
Althought not to an exhaustive route, I found that TMPG and CCE gave the
best results. I couldn't never get MC to give me the results as the above two
could - ever. Anyways.

On some encodes, I'd say that TMPG did better than CCE, and while in other
encodes, I'd say CCE.

It just depends on:

* the source.
* how you encode it
* bitrates used in each encoder (and encoders' algorithm)
* video scripts (ie, AVIsynth vs. virtualdub vs. direct feed into encoders)
* And, each method has be be as close to the other competer's feature
... and settings.

However, no two encoders functions alike.., so some "leeway" or percentage
has to be factored inside the comparisons

I'm still waiting upon the tests that this FORUM was planning on doing (some
months ago) but may have forgotten for the moment

-vhelp

[racer-x]

Skynet107 wrote:

lordsmurf wrote:

Adds noise, all hype: CinemaCraft (CCE)
you need to get your eyes checked. All hype? ooohkay.

No............You need to get your eyes checked, lordsmurf is 100% correct in his asessment of CCE. For a $2000 encoder, it is a real joke as far as I'm concerned. In my tests, it inroduced noise that was never in the original source. It is very slow w/3-pass or higher. Anything less than 3-pass sucks in the quality department.

[adam]

We can all refer each other to the optometrist as must as we want, but it won't change the fact that CCE is an exceptionally high quality encoder. If you are getting "noise" then you haven't mastered the image quality priority setting yet. Its damn fast too. The only software encoder that really competes is MainConcept.

It is very slow w/3-pass or higher. Anything less than 3-pass sucks in the quality department.

I never understood this. The difference between a 2 pass and a 3 pass encode is virtually nothing. If you are getting bad quality after the second pass then throwing another 10 passes at it is not going to accomplish anything. You need to rethink your settings.

[vhelp]

Hi guys.

I forgot to mention that those tests that I was refering to in my last response
above, were with respect to CBR encodes only.

I appoligize to anyone if I misslead them in any way. I'd hate to do that

I did not find it worth it, to compare TMPG and CCE w/ multi-pass, because I
do not use them in my DVD projects :P

As for CBR encodes...

But, IMO I found that TMPG and CCE (in the few tests that I have performed
over the past few months now) were all too close to even care
But sometimes, when I encode a short clip w/ CCE and then TMPG, I end up
saying, "man.., it looks better than TMPG's.." (CBR, that is) but then, in another
test encode, I'll say the same w/ TMPG's :P

@ adam..

If you are getting "noise" then you haven't mastered the image
quality priority setting yet. Its damn fast too.

Have you used this "image quality priority" feature in CBR encodes for DVD projects,
and with good results ??
Or, do you feel (based upon your experience) that this is best used for multi-pass
encode projects
.
I'm still toying around with "all-around" encoding settings in my tests.

..just curious

Thanks,
-vhelp

[adam]

Have you used this "image quality priority" feature in CBR encodes for DVD projects,
and with good results ??
Or, do you feel (based upon your experience) that this is best used for multi-pass

Its not a feature per se, its a required setting. Its always going to be set to something, you've got to ensure that its set appropriately for your source and bitrate. If you set it too high then you get mosquito noise. If you set it too low you get contour noise. If you set it appropriately then you get neither, and damn good bitrate allocation as a result. This is the most important setting in CCE for any project, though it does have more of an effect on VBR encodes.

I use CCE for all progressive sources, and nowadays I almost exclusively encode to DVD. For interlaced footage I prefer Procoder. I've yet to find an encoder that can produce higher quality than CCE with progressive sources.

And yes I have gotten great results from CCE using CBR. If my bitrate is high enough I just use CBR. But at those types of bitrates I'd expect great quality from any of the popular encoders. I've toyed with lower bitrate CBR encodes though, and they looked fine too.

I'm not saying CCE is the best encoder out there. But I don't see how ANY encoder can be popular due to hype. Its not like people are going to choose to use an encoder that gives them poor results simply because its the cool thing to do. Obviously people aren't going to continue using it unless they are satisfied with the quality.