Thoughts on Procoder

[rrstudio2]

So I finally figured out how to reach the procoder demo, you have to register on their site, then a link appears that allows you to download demos of their software. I compared the quality of several video clips and wanted to give my reviews. The procoder quality is better than the encoder that Ulead MovieFactory 3.5 uses however the quality of each is pretty similiar. The colors seem richer from the procoder encoding than Ulead's encoding. I also found the the Procoder can use smaller bit rates and give almost the same quality as the Ulead encoder at higher bit rates. For example, the encoding of procoder (PC) at 6000 looks better than the Ulead encoding at 7000. Since the quality is similiar at these different bit rates, it seems you could use the 6000 in PC and fit more video on one disk. File sizes were about 130% larger when encoded with Ulead at 7000 compared with procoder at 6000. One strange thing was that PC took a long time encoding a QT file generated by my kodak dx7440 camera. The QT movie was about 45 seconds and it took PC about 20 minutes for the encoding. It was only processing about 0.9 frames per second. Not sure why this was so slow. That was my only quicktime test, so maybe it was a fluke. One interesting thing...the sound quality of the QT time was much higher in procoder than my encoding it with TMPGenc (Ulead won't open the QT file). The video quality of the QT file was very similiar although still slightly better in procoder. Ulead also does not allow you to change to 2 pass VBR, it is all CBR thus another advantage of PC is the ability to be more flexible and hopefully maintain quality while generating smaller file sizes.

So my conclusion...actually still unsure. Seeing as MovieFactory came with my DVD burner, it was pretty much free. I was thinking of purchasing Procoder Express, but am not sure the slight increase in video quality is worth an extra $60. I also do not like how Procoder will not encode the audio as MPEG. The only option is for seperate audio and visual or for video and wave in one file. That seems odd to me however I guess it is made for people who want to convert the audio to AC3 (which in my understanding is the DVD standard- allow most play audio as MPEG right?). Why don't they have a built in MPEG or AC3 encoder. I don't want to encode my video then use another program to encode the audio and they multiplex them together in another program, talk about adding a lot of extra steps. At this point I am mainly concerned with quality for making family DVDs, thus am not yet concerned with smaller file sizes, thus am not sure those advantages apply to me. Still thinking of purchasing it, but have not decided if it is worth the extra cost. The extra money might be better spent on a video editing program like Adobe Premiere elements since as of now I just use Windows MovieMaker2 (I don't care for the Ulead VideoStudio that came with MovieFactory).

Just thought I would share my experiece.
-Andrew

[edDV]

...
I compared the quality of several video clips and wanted to give my reviews. The procoder quality is better than the encoder that Ulead MovieFactory 3.5 uses however the quality of each is pretty similiar. The colors seem richer from the procoder encoding than Ulead's encoding. I also found the the Procoder can use smaller bit rates and give almost the same quality as the Ulead encoder at higher bit rates. For example, the encoding of procoder (PC) at 6000 looks better than the Ulead encoding at 7000. Since the quality is similiar at these different bit rates, it seems you could use the 6000 in PC and fit more video on one disk. File sizes were about 130% larger when encoded with Ulead at 7000 compared with procoder at 6000.

ULead's MovieFactory 3.5 encoder is built on the Mainconcept MPeg SDK but that is an older version. A bit unfair in version level and product cost $49 vs $499 for Procoder, but that too is unfair since Procoder does so many more conversions.

...
One strange thing was that PC took a long time encoding a QT file generated by my kodak dx7440 camera. The QT movie was about 45 seconds and it took PC about 20 minutes for the encoding. It was only processing about 0.9 frames per second. Not sure why this was so slow. That was my only quicktime test, so maybe it was a fluke. One interesting thing...the sound quality of the QT time was much higher in procoder than my encoding it with TMPGenc (Ulead won't open the QT file). The video quality of the QT file was very similiar although still slightly better in procoder. Ulead also does not allow you to change to 2 pass VBR, it is all CBR thus another advantage of PC is the ability to be more flexible and hopefully maintain quality while generating smaller file sizes.

The Kodak DX7440 uses MJPEG coding. The various digital cameras put their MJPEG into either Quicktime or AVI shells. So this isn't really a test of other Quicktime codecs.

...
The only option is for seperate audio and visual or for video and wave in one file. That seems odd to me however I guess it is made for people who want to convert the audio to AC3 (which in my understanding is the DVD standard- allow most play audio as MPEG right?). Why don't they have a built in MPEG or AC3 encoder.

Ulead DVD MovieFactory 4 encodes AC-3. It has an optional AC-3 codec that both decodes and encodes AC-3. At least I think it works with MovieFactory.

Look at and evaluate the full versions of ULead Video Studio and Adobe Encore + Canpous Procoder Express to make your choice.

[Wile_E]

I hope you didn't use just the Kodak DX7440 video clips to make your judgement on quality. I have that camera, and the video quality is poor. (I would never use it for video that I want to keep). You should use captured analog or DV format to judge the conversion to MPEG2.

Procoder does have an option to use MPEG audio. Star t Procoder, open an AVI file, and click on "Target". Under "Basic Settings" you can pick a Stream Type. Either MPEG2 Video + Wave file, or MPEG2 Program Stream. You want the program stream.

Yes, I agree that Procoder really needs an AC3 encoder built-in. I am surprised Canopus has yet to include one. AC3 is the official standard for DVD audio in USA. MPEG audio will still work in most players, but it is not standard and of lower quality. Canopus needs to hurry up and offer an AC3 encoder built-in to their encoder. No one should have to use a seperate AC3 encoder.

[rrstudio2]

"I hope you didn't use just the Kodak DX7440 video clips to make your judgement on quality"- Ha ha, no I didn't just use the Kodak video clips to make a judgement on quality, however I should have made that clear since I can see somsone doing that. However with that said, the DX7440 doesn't take terrible quality video, it is 640x480 at 15fps which is a bit slow, but the resolution isn't too bad when comparing camera video.

After playing around some more with different programs, I ended up purchasing Adobe Premiere elements which comes with a the Main Concept encoder which allows 2-pass VBR and outputs as MPEG audio or PCM audio. Quality is pretty nice, plus it is a pretty good video editor. For the money, I think Premiere elements is a much better buy than Procoder. However with that said, I guess one of the main advantages of Procoder is the ability to import and export several more formats than Premiere allows you to. At this point, I don't really need that, as I am just going from DV and WMV files to DVD compliant MPEG files.

Thanks for the tips,
Andrew V. Romero