VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 9
FirstFirst ... 7 8 9
Results 241 to 253 of 253
Thread
  1. Member MozartMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HockeyTown
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by InXess
    "Highly tweaked"... could you explain in what way? Can MC 1.4 or 1.5 be tweaked the same way? I doubt that they have rewritten the engine... why would they give Sony a better encoder and keep crap to themselves...? NLE makers just keep on coming to MC even though their encoder sucks... and ask them to tweak this piece of junk so that it could drive their Pro grade NLE like Premiere...? I don't think so. I just don't get the logic here. MC is incorporated in many NLE's, in fact they have almost monopolized licensed encoder market (Sony, Adobe, Ulead and probably few more).

    Do you have any details on those tweaks? It seems to be slower then stock MC Enc... and locked in a higher, more elaborate (time consuming) encoding scheme but that could be accomplished with MC too.
    InXess,

    Looks like you are obsessed with MC stand alone encoder. See here:

    https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1492613#1492613
    Quote Quote  
  2. Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    This is not so. I simply don't believe in a cryptic "high customization" of a existing encoder. There's no proof of it. Everyone who wants to sound like an insider says so but where's the proof?

    You may be satisfied with "I know but won't tell" statement ...

    To me it's just kindergarten. Why? As a reference to MC Enc implementation MC sends you to the Demo - Standalone version of it meaning that everything is there IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE IT!

    Keep in mind that fixes to Adobe implementations are still coming from MC website not Adobe clearly showing that there's a boundary to Licensee's access to the source code as well as ownership issues on both sides (also Adobe distancing themselves from the "external' encoder solution that they happen to use). The notion that Adobe/Sony etc. "version" is a "rewritten" (read: not the same) MC Encoder is a myth. Read carefully. All they say SDK gives access to "all possible settings" of MC Encoder. That's it. Settings (!) that you may give users access to or preconfigure them (use template). This is what I think: it's preconfigured to the Licensee taste not rewritten like some seem to suggest.

    Lastly, I just don't buy stories easily (unlike some...) unless there's a proof which is still missing here.

    MPEG-1/MPEG-2 SDK
    Now available for Mac and Linux!

    This powerful SDK enables your applications to read, write and edit MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 streams in high quality with sensational speed. The SDK is ideal for consumer-level products and broadcast usage.

    The SDK consists of a low-level API (in the C programming language) for decoding and encoding as well as extensive documentation and samples with sources.

    The encoder is full featured and it is possible to have access to nearly every MPEG setting imaginable, however it also includes pre-configured templates for VCD, SVCD, DVD, MICROMV, HDV and other standards.

    The encoder meets the highest broadcast quality standards and includes professional features like transport streams, 4:2:2 support, 2-pass encoding and more. However the SDK is so flexible that it can also be used to capture analog or DV material in realtime to MPEG (our Capture SDK offers this functionality).

    For a reference implementation of the SDK please download and evaluate the free demo version of our MainConcept MPEG Encoder.
    http://developer.mainconcept.com/mpeg-sdk.html

    Since the other thread referenced this one, I thought it would be appropriate to address this issue here and there to either clarify it or stop spreading half-truths.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Член BJ_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    ok -- it is all a myth and you are right, i can throw out what we have done so far as i realize it was a waste of our time as we really didnt do anything .....
    "Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    Quote Quote  
  4. Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by BJ_M
    ok -- it is all a myth and you are right
    I think so. It's like UFO. Everyone (OK, maybe not everyone...) talks about it and nobody has seen it.

    Originally Posted by BJ_M
    i can throw out what we have done so far as i realize it was a waste of our time as we really didn't do anything .....
    If you say so...

    Mainconcept is quite clear on their position. There's no ambiguity here. They say "settings" to THEIR Encoder! The way I read it is they allow to create custom templates, like Avisynth scripts for MC Encoder, that's all. Don't shift it onto me.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by InXess
    Originally Posted by BJ_M
    ok -- it is all a myth and you are right
    I think so. It's like UFO. Everyone (OK, maybe not everyone...) talks about it and nobody has seen it.

    Originally Posted by BJ_M
    i can throw out what we have done so far as i realize it was a waste of our time as we really didn't do anything .....
    If you say so...

    Btw. who's "we"? C'mon give us something!

    Mainconcept is quite clear on their position. There's no ambiguity here. They say "settings" to THEIR Encoder! The way I read it is they allow to create custom templates, like Avisynth scripts for MC Encoder, that's all. Don't shift it onto me.
    You seem to be freaking out here. What is your concern?

    The way it stands, solutions differ by user goal.

    Adobe, Sonic Foundary (product lines sold to Sony) and ULead all opted for Mainconcept because they were all selling DV format to DVD (YCbCr interlaced) and nobody had a better scalable solution than Mainconcept of Germany. The other encoders seemed focused only on progressive RGB to DVD. At least that is my view.

    These companies covet acceptance by the broadcast elite. This required the conversion from computer centric 0-255 RGB to ITU-Rec-601 YCbCr with 16-235 8bit and more important 64-960 10bit scalings. If you can't work with native Betacam, or SDI (SMPTE 259M) without colorspace conversion, then just go away.

    Adobe adopted the Mainconcept SDK with Premiere version 6.5 and for their aquisition of what became Encore. At that time they were already committed to a complete rewrite of Premiere to Y,Cb,Cr ITU-Rec 601 at higher bitdepth (plus RGB legacy).

    Others made the decision to go with Mainconcept around the same time. ULead and Sonic Foundary were competing with Adobe as the dominent player in their segment. When they all chose Mainconcept, they at least removed the encoder as a competitive issue.

    That doesn't make Mainconcept the best solution for everyone.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by edDV
    You seem to be freaking out here. What is your concern?
    OK, sorry for being bit sarcastic. I just have hard time taking stuff on faith.
    Seems like more people test encoders more blurry the issue is. Different tests lead to different conclusions. Particularly MC Enc is a mixed bag. Depending on who does it , how and what implementation is used outcomes are different. No wonder I'd like to know why? It gets marks from total crap to excellent... Weird. Especially that we're talking about the same product (or it seems so). I haven't seen anything that would make me believe that these are different engines. Looks like the key is in settings...

    Why would MC market its flagship as highest quality and with each new release it supposedly stays behind its morphed versions as per some testers. Why would MC keep it purposely behind Sony, Adobe plug-in versions of their own product... Makes little sense. At the same time they say it is full featured and remains their reference item. Something's wrong with that picture.

    I'd approach it differently if they said: OK, here's a basic version that you can push to become a Ferrari, but this is not what they say. I have yet to see something to make me believe that the standalone engine is at fault.

    Btw. I think it was an unfortunate choice with flames as a testing clip. Flying debris (well defined objects) after explosion would be better for image/encoding analysis.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    When I tested the stand alone MCE 1.4 version, it was a non-starter literally. The real time capture feature expected a camcorder machine control cue dialog before starting the capture. I wanted to use the Canopus ADVC or camcorder pass-thru.

    Never could find a switch to turn off device control like you have in Premiere, Ulead and Vegas. That made the standalone MCE useless to me.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  8. Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoencodvd/revfeat/video_mpeg_encoder_shootout/

    is this where the inspiration came from?
    there's a sharp object in the middle making it a bit easier to judge...
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    1.05 fixed the device control issue and the realtime MPeg2 encoding is working from the ADVC DV stream

    Now I can test it.
    If it performs better than the ULead VS9 version, I'll spend the $49.

    That Video Systems test is rather dated. But you may not know that Discreet Cleaner XL for PC is built on the Mainconcept SDK http://www.mainconcept.com/partners/discreet/discreet.shtml
    Quote Quote  
  10. Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I can sense the irony... That doesn't clear things up for me, just opposite, it reinforces my doubts... Something is really wrong with that picture. Every MC based product excells but the workhorse behind it is left holding the bag...

    I'll try to test it with this: teco.emg.hu/test.avi their test avi
    http://www.tecoltd.com/enctest/enctest.htm
    especially Vegas and stock MC Enc. vs Procoder 2 (which I prefer for DV)

    Originally Posted by edDV
    That Video Systems test is rather dated....
    Forum test (BJ_M) is Aug 2004, http://digitalcontentproducer.com linked publication is Apr. 2004 (both about the same)

    PS. oops, looks like their test file is shot, sorry
    Quote Quote  
  11. I've read through this thread and have concluded that the general consensus is that DV to MPEG2 is best accomplished with Procoder 1.5.

    My only question is, with only 2.0 and Express shipping, how does one find a 1.5 version to buy?

    Also, I'm assuming that Express is no better than 2.0 - and is probably handicapped in some very significant way - such as no-deinterlacing - but I can't find a feature comparison on Canopus' website

    Thanks in advance for any help.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've read the original, but wonders if there are any comparison of the FREE Encoders, such as HCEnc, NuEnc, QuEnc, FreeEnc, and so on against the pro/paid solutions?

    For Example, FAVC uses QuEnc, while AVI2DVD can use any of the above (I can't get it to work with NuEnc though, though HCEnc works fine after a bit of file renaming). HCEnc usually finishes in about 3 hours, whereas QuEnc takes about 5 or more. Speed vs. quality is a good comparison point as well?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Senior Member c627627's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Search Comp PM
    I decided to do this test myself as well to see the differences when I try to make a DVD out of my camcorder footage.

    I also found that Canopus ProCoder wins quality wise. As far as ProCoder version 1.5 vs. 2.0 and Highest vs. Mastering settings, why do some of us see 1.5 and Highest being 'better'?

    I compared:
    • Canopus ProCoder 1.5
    • Canopus ProCoder 2.0
    Cinema Craft Encoder SP2 1.00.00.13
    • Cinema Craft Encoder Basic 2.70.01.15
    • Sony Vegas 6.0d (MainConcept)
    • Sony Vegas 7.0d (MainConcept)
    TMPGEnc Plus 2.524.63.181
    TMPGEnc DVD Source Creator 4.2.7.199
    Ulead VideoStudio 10
    Ulead DVD Workshop 2
    here:
    https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=323609


    I found that
    • TMPGEnc Plus 2.524.63.181
    • TMPGEnc DVD Source Creator 4.2.7.199
    • Ulead VideoStudio 10
    • Ulead DVD Workshop 2

    ...are true to the original but I found the others enhance the colors for a better experience.
    Sony MainConcept color improvements sure seemed very nice but the picture quality of Canopus ProCoder beats it.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!