Which is the best encoder? FFmpeg? staxrip, or megui?

[Vlenbo]

I'm new here, but I'm trying to find the best encoder that can possibly come, which encodes best quality and with small file size? If you don't mind answering this please answer.

[Baldrick]

Use h264 video and aac audio. I guess all those converters are based on the free x264 encoder so it doesn't matter that much what you use but megui has many custom profiles to get best quality.

[Vlenbo]

Cool thanks for your reply, so there isn't really the best converter out there is there? Those three converters are adequate right? Cause I used megui last time and well...I guess I don't know how to use it much. =\ oh btw, can you solve this problem I might have? I use staxrip most of the time, and I want to convert the audio to AAC 5.1 with 200-250 kbps, but for some reason it doesn't keep it at 200 it does it lower for some reason.

[deadrats]

I'm new here, but I'm trying to find the best encoder that can possibly come, which encodes best quality and with small file size? If you don't mind answering this please answer.

you really asked a loaded question, you know that? if what you want to know is which codec gives the best quality at a given bit rate, most people would answer H264, though, Divx, VC-1 and RM10 also will give you fabulous quality.

the truth is that as the bit rate goes up the difference between all three and mpeg-2 starts to disappear and at around the 20-25Mb/s range there doesn't seem to be much difference.

now if you are asking which is the best H264 codec, you will find a ton of answers, with most people on sites like this swearing by the open source x264.

as for me, i have found alot depends on the source, at times x264 with all the quality options maxed out has given me the best results, at time nero's AVC has given me the best results, main concept's H264 (if you know how to configure it properly) is highly regarded, sony's AVC is actually very good and apple's H264 is capable of given awesome results (look at the HD trailer's on their site) the only problem is that you can only access all the configuration problems if you buy some very expensive software.

you might also want to wait a few days as Divx is set to release an H264 codec and considering how could their current codec is that may prove to be the best H264 codec of them all.

as far as staxrip versus megui, i would personally say neither and instead recommend avidemux, just a personal preference.

[Vlenbo]

hehe, sorry for asking such a question, I see now, so..divx is also doing an H264 codec, are you really sure that, that will be the best codec of all? I already knew H264 was the best(thanks to this forum. :P) but I never knew divx would also try that, isn't divx a hack of mpeg-4? If I can recall correctly?

[PuzZLeR]

Don't work with ffmpeg much, but I will speak for MeGUI and StaxRIP. Both are GUIs and are dependent on their internal "engines", which include x264 (an H.264 implementation), Xvid (and also DivX with StaxRip). Both GUIs do great work and both should produce similar quality given similar settings.

As for x264, I believe it's optimized for smaller bitrates and out-does almost anything below 2000kbps with most sources.

But, given most sources, and from what I observe on the big screen of late, video that is that compressed is rather "mediocre" at best. It's either blurry (x264) or blocky (DivX/Xvid). "Stuffing things on a CD" is a mindset of the past and useless when we have these big hard drives currently - so welcome back MPEG-2 (faster, editable and very, very compliant with DvD of course).

As for DivX's version of H.264, we are all very excited about it at the DivX forums. It should do lots for H.264 SD video reaching prime time without resorting to watered down versions of it like iPod or AppleTV or having to aggravate yourself with BD's tricky specs.

Also, DivX's version of H.264 will be the best H.264 implementation ever if they take care of what plagues some H.264 implementations on the big screen - smeary/washed video at lower bitrates. We need to see the grain on grass, or freckles on a face, without resorting to patches (like AQ for example) that shoot up the bitrate and make the codec useless.

[Vlenbo]

wow....I see now...o_o but...the x264 is not good enough then huh? Are you sure the divx team will do a good job of making the best h.264 implement available? like seeing freckless on face and etc?

[PuzZLeR]

Yes, I believe they will do a great job, considering they have access to MainConcept's technologies (due to their acquisition last year). Combining core competencies of two significant codec companies from the marketplace should deliver one killer codec.

Yes, DivX did start out as a "hack" and actually benefited from piracy that went on, but I'm hoping - praying - that they move on to more professional endeavors. Leverage is one thing, overkill is another.

I'm hoping the next DivX codec has a more "film-like" look that will translate well on the big screen instead of blurry low-bitrate encodes (or the blocky ones of their current codec). I'm hoping they attract a different audience this time - such as the big-screen TV or blu-ray crowd, maybe even enterprise solutions as well with a different version.

Cramming crappy low-bitrate video onto a CD, or through an Internet connection, is the mindset that they've hopefully moved on from.