TMPGEnc 2.5 Plus VS TMPGEnc 4.5 XPress : which one is better for mpge2?

[ShinKyo]

I know that TMPGEnc 2.5 Plus is better than TMPGEnc 3.0 Xpress. But how about Xpress version 4.5 now? Is the old 2.5 plus version still superior in mpeg2 encoding regarding the quality (don't care about the speed)?

[filmboss80]

If Mpeg2 is the only format you need to encode to, then TMPGEnc 2.5 Plus is a much better value for your dollar than 3.0 Xpress. You can certainly control the quality of your final output with great flexibility. For the price, it is a great software Mpeg2 encoder. I have it on one of my PCs. The only drawback is the encoding time. It is slow! Plan on doing encodes overnight while you're not using your computer.

[jagabo]

If you only need MPEG 2 encoding HCEnc is free, at least as good as TMPGEnc Plus, and much faster.

[FulciLives]

I second the use of HCenc

It is freeware and produces excellent quality MPEG-2 video.

Granted you will need to learn to use AviSynth but FitCD can help somewhat in that dept.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[ShinKyo]

HCenc is NOT an option for me: I need an encoder where I can set a custom resolution for the encode. And I think only TMPGEncs can do tht with an reasonable quality.

So which one is better: TMPGEnc 2.5 plus or Xpress 4.5 regarding MPEG2 quality? (Price doesn't matter I just want the best quality).

[jman98]

You can set a custom resolution for an HCEnc encode - you just have to do it in AviSynth. It's not that hard.

HCEnc and CCE (quite expensive) are both better than any version of TMPGenc. TMPGenc is prone to macroblocking even at high bit rates. I used TMPGenc to encode something in QuickTime to MPEG-2 before I knew how to get HCEnc to do it and even though my bit rate was 8000 Kbps, I got macroblocks on many scene changes when encoding with TMPGenc. It looked like a bad VCD. I guess if I had to use TMPGenc I would use whatever version was the most up to date, which I guess is Xpress 4.5. TMPGenc 2.5 Plus is pretty old.

[jagabo]

HCenc is NOT an option for me: I need an encoder where I can set a custom resolution for the encode. And I think only TMPGEncs can do tht with an reasonable quality.

I've been able to use just about any Mod16 frame size in HCenc.

[filmboss80]

Between the two choices offered -- both TMPGEnc products, I don't think there would be a quality difference in terms of Mpeg2 encoding, since they likely use the same encoding scheme. People in this forum may have one or the other, but not both, so it is difficult to answer your question, since no one's done a side-by-side comparison. Like others who have posted, I am wondering if you are married to TMPGEnc products alone. There are other choices. Like I said earlier, I have Plus 2.5 on one of my PCs, but I also use other software encoders, like HCEnc, as well as hardware encoders (for business -- out of your price range). I have never had any macroblock artifacts like jman98, and I think Plus 2.5 does a pretty good job, especially for the $37 price. But considering HCEnc is free, you gotta love that.

People have posted. At some point, you just need to make a decision and take a leap.

[ShinKyo]

Is there a guide for AviSynth which teach you how to set up costum resolutions?

[Sartori]

post deleted

[jagabo]

I don't know of a specific guide for resizing but the AviSynth commands you want to use are typically BilinearResize(width, height) for reducing and LanczosResize(width, height) for enlarging.

[guns1inger]

Is there a guide for AviSynth which teach you how to set up costum resolutions?

All you have to do is crop or resize : http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/Internal_filters#Geometric_deformation_filters

[DRP]

TMPGenc is prone to macroblocking even at high bit rates. I used TMPGenc to encode something in QuickTime to MPEG-2 before I knew how to get HCEnc to do it and even though my bit rate was 8000 Kbps, I got macroblocks

Most likely those macroblocks were already in the source QuickTime file and have just been replicated or even amplified by the MPEG2 encoding especially if you used any sharpening filters.

[jagabo]

I have to agree with jman98 -- TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 generates more macroblock artifacts than HCEnc or CCE.

[FulciLives]

Once I was comfortable with using AviSynth with TMPGEnc Plus 2.5x I then switched to CCE which was't that hard to master (as I already knew AviSynth) and now I use either CCE or HCenc depending on my whim of fancy.

My point is ---> Can't imagine ever going back to TMPGEnc Plus

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[jagabo]

My point is ---> Can't imagine ever going back to TMPGEnc Plus

Exactly. Given that HCEnc and CCE deliver better quality and are several times faster there's no reason to use TMPGEnc Plus for encoding.