2009 MPEG-2 Encoder Test!

[kazyn]

This is what the author of AvsToDVD posted

Select Case .VideoBitRate
Case Is > 6000
DC_Precision = "10"
Case Is > 4000
DC_Precision = "9"
Case Else
DC_Precision = "8"
End Select

I'll take a look later today when I have some time at retail dvds to see what they're using. I never actually looked...

[deadrats]

I read somewhere that using DC precision of 10 is overkill at DVD bitrates but I think the discussion then was when converting interlaced DV to DVD. Maybe progressive movies which are easier to encode sometimes can justify a DC precision of 10. By an old habit I always use DC precision 9 unless the bitrate is "very low", then I use 8.

the entire "DC" argument is silly as far as i'm concerned as a simple experiment should convince everyone that a DC setting of 10 gives the best quality output no matter what the bit rate. maybe it's just my eyes but i see a big difference going from a DC of 8 to 9 then to 10.

i think what may be confusing some is that the term "DC" seems to be a bit of a misnomer, as "DC component" is meant to describe the mean value of a waveform and the correct term would be DCT when dealing with two-dimensional transforms. here are 3 excellent links, but be forewarned, the second one really requires a solid calculus background to understand what exactly is being talked about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_coefficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5559557/claims.html

incidentally, the highest DC value, as far as i know, is 11, though i think i've only seen one encoder that could use that level.

[gadgetguy]

HC allows 11, but warns that it's not DVD compliant.

[d4t]

kazyn showed more evidence thn the others, that a 9 DC was good enough for the test, and since the OP used the same DC with all the encoders, this just doesn't invalidate anything on his comparison.

The OP also agreed that a clip comparison would be best, but they added to some big file size and he wasn't going to upload it. So frame comparison is what we have. And it is valid too, yes.

I found this test is really good, and to be honest, there isn't a better comparison at videohelp.

People should first do their own comparison and contribution to videohelp, before trashtalking this one.

d4t.

[manono]

kazyn showed more evidence thn the others, that a 9 DC was good enough for the test...

No, it was just further proof that the OP was an incompetent encoder, as a lower DC Precision setting doesn't shrink the size much for the same Q, but can sometimes compromise its quality/appearance.

...and since the OP used the same DC with all the encoders, this just doesn't invalidate anything on his comparison.

I stated in my first reply to CubDukat that all the encodings had been degraded equally. However, the OP claimed to be a skilled encoder (some of his bragging was edited out after more and more mistakes were brought to his attention) and claimed to be using the best settings for all the encoders, but that statement was just nonsense.

[d4t]

the OP claimed to be a skilled encoder"

When I read the first post, all I can see is that simps said he was using some equal settings for all encoders like DC = 9, VBR = 4000, and apart from those settings that were equal to all encoders, he was using the best quality settings each encoder could provide.

I never saw simps claiming he was a skilled encoder. How did you get to that is beyond what I can read on this thread.
It just looks like you are making fake assumptions.
This is what the OP said, and if you read it carefuly, you would see it is nothing like what you are claiming.

This is not supose to be a definitive test or anything very special. This is just some amature comparison between the encoders, not intended to be the full scale thing. If anyone want to see some comparison, they can come here and see, it is just that, and it server for this porpous. Does it have limitations? OF COURSE, tell me where I said this was the real complete comparison? I never said that, you are assuming that I believe this is some kinda of "real deal" of a comparison, and then making your comment. Looks kinda patetic hum?

Just look for it on the first page, and it is not edited (dated 06-may-2009), and this was posted by the OP before the discussion had even started. This is evidence of how your interpretation of text is bad.

[manono]

It just looks like you are making fake assumptions.
This is what the OP said, and if you read it carefuly, you would see it is nothing like what you are claiming.

Did you miss the part where I said he later edited out most of his claims to be a superior encoder? However:

I know all of this encoders very well, so I believe I created a fair scenario for the comparison.

He doesn't know jack.

[d4t]

It just looks like you are making fake assumptions.
This is what the OP said, and if you read it carefuly, you would see it is nothing like what you are claiming.

Did you miss the part where I said he later edited out most of his claims to be a superior encoder? However:

I know all of this encoders very well, so I believe I created a fair scenario for the comparison.

He doesn't know jack.

You don't seeb to be reasonable at all, so I see no reason to believe when you say he edited anything.
Also, what is wrong with this?

I know all of this encoders very well, so I believe I created a fair scenario for the comparison.

You take a sentence like this, and you say he is claiming to be the skilled encoder?
I am sorry, but a reasonable person won't feel like that, but as I said before, it is not your case.

[manono]

You don't seeb to be reasonable at all, so I see no reason to believe when you say he edited anything.

Anything? He edited the first post 24 times. Much of that was to redo tests after it was brought to his attention that he didn't do them correctly. Other edits were to get rid of his bragging when it became more and more obvious that this was a useless and pointless comparison. He refused to post his scripts after being asked to repeatedly. He didn't address the questions about whether or not he made the colorimetry adjustments necessary when going from Hi-Def to Std-Def, which tells me he didn't have any idea what that was. He didn't add a ConvertToYUY2() to his script for Procoder and then used the levels change it produced as evidence that it was inferior. The list goes on. His encoder comparison was nothing more than on-the-job training for a rank amateur.

[Midzuki]

I see no reason to believe when you say he edited anything.

[lordsmurf]

How many more newbies plan to post stupid shit in this thread?

[SatStorm]

This effort has been edited so many times, so someone who likes to talk about it, can't follow the discussion anymore.

So, I lock this, because now it is obviously misleading.