Which video encoder do you guys prefer?

[sctele]

Hey, just wanted some opinions on video encoders. I wanted to know which video encoder produced the best quality mpegs, was the fastest, has the greatest number of options, etc.? What do you guys prefer? And listing pros and cons of each encoder would be very beneficial!!! Thanks!!!

i.e. As for the poll, i chose the ones that I thought were the most popular.

[mkelley]

That's the problem with these polls: they usually leave out the best options.

(Good, fast, cheap).

MainConcept, without a doubt.

[housepig]

Good, fast, cheap

as I good friend of mine would say, "pick any two".

I agree that MainConcept is inexpensive, and fast as a jackrabbit. But in my tests, I found that TMPGenc smoked it for quality.

And I'll freely admit that I probably don't know how to get the best quality out of MainConcept or CCE, but with the same amount of futzing and setting up the program, the results I got from TMPGenc were miles beyond MainConcept.

it's just a drag that it's slow as molassas in January...

[sctele]

I've actually never hear of mainconcept, but i added it into the polls just in case it is a popular choice for encoding.

[mkelley]

[quote="housepig"]

And I'll freely admit that I probably don't know how to get the best quality out of MainConcept or CCE, but with the same amount of futzing and setting up the program, the results I got from TMPGenc were miles beyond MainConcept.

it's just a drag that it's slow as molassas in January...

Just to show we're not always in agreement <g> I'll tell you that MC beats the heck out of TMPGEnc in nearly any quality test I've tried -- no contest.

And that's just using the MC presets (admittedly I didn't futz around with TMPGEnc's stuff either but just used those presets).

It's no coincidence that most major projects use MC and/or CCE -- they are the encoders of choice. Only the fact that TMPGEnc is so cheap keeps it viable in this market.

As usual, only IMHO.

[mkelley]

It occurs to me, though that two vastly different opinons might be related to source material -- for the most part I'm encoding VHS captures and/or DV-AVI. In the case of DV-AVI the output is indistinguisable (on my high end monitors) from the source material using either product, so I can't tell you MainConcept beats TMPGEnc there (only that there's no difference either way except in length of time which MC wins naturally).

With VHS captures I can definitely see a quality improvement using MC over TMPGEnc -- but perhaps you're not doing a lot of this (I'm capturing full D1 using the Hollywood bridge, and for the most part my VHS footage is very good, although there is some pretty awful stuff now and then).

[fuzzywuzzy]

I have recently compared Canopus ProCoder 1.01.35 and TMPGEnc Plus 2.512 for highest quality SVCD encoding. Using the same AVI file source (Divx 5.04) I set each for their highest quality modes that would make a reasonable two-disc SVCD set. ProCoder used 2-pass VBR, TMPG used CQ mode. The result from both was exceptional in quality, viewed on my computer using PowerDVD as well as burned to disc and played on a 65" rear-projection TV. No noticeable artifacts from either, crisp and clean. The difference came in the time and file size produced. ProCoder took over 5 hours, TMPGEnc just over 3 hours. File size, ProCoder was slightly larger but not enough to be considered significant.

So, with both having excellent results but TMPGEnc taking a significantly less amount of time, I have to give the nod to TMPGEnc Plus.

[DivXExpert]

CCE with max passes looks very good. But I have only used the trial, I stick with TMPGEnc for money related issues, which is also very high quality. And I just don't like MainConcept, don't why.

[housepig]

mkelly -

actually, so far I've been capturing either from laserdisc (analog) or from VHS, so I don't think it's the source...

If I still have them, I can send you the original .avi file and the encode tests I did that really sold me on TMPGenc over MainConcept. (or I can just cut out a couple clips... there was one segment in particular that just looked so bad from MC...)

And believe me, MC was fast as hell on my rig (1.8x vs 4-6x from TMPGenc) and as such, I wish I got better results from it.

but at it's best, it doesn't look better than TMPG, and at it's worst, it looks terrible.

and it's not like I super-tweak anything in TMPGenc.. the deepest I go in there is selecting source range or changing the bitrate - I don't get that advanced, because I don't need to.

but it could also be differences in our capture cards, and the files they output (the Hollywood Bridge vs the Aver DVD EZmaker).

or maybe I'm just on crack.

[mkelley]

Hmmm, I wonder what version of MC you were using.

On 1.3 I get near real time (as close as I can time it -- *maybe* 1.05x) so your results don't look right just there (although your timing on TMPGEnc looks similar to mine). I dunno -- I guess the real bottom line is we both have something we're happy with (I only played with TMPGEnc about two weeks before I came to the conclusion the quality wasn't as good -- however, I do know that I'm not alone in thinking MC/CCE quality is much better than other encoders, as I've read about it on *many* other forums. Indeed, that's what pointed me towards MC in the first place).

I don't try to fix anything that isn't broken, as a general rule <g> Which reminds me, your quote about "Good, fast, cheap" was *exactly* what I was going to write (unfortunately, my boss came along and I had to do some real work for a change). Basically I was going to outline for the original poster (since he wanted details):

Good, fast, cheap (pick any two)

MainConcept: Good, fast
CCE: Good, fast
TMPGEnce Good, cheap

[sctele]

I appreciate it....i gotta admit, that discussion was pretty interesting. Anyone else got an encoder that they'd like to laud?