VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Considering upgrading to Premiere CS 4 which has more encoding and exporting options.

    Curious what forum members think & have experienced and the reason for thier views.

    Thanks in advance.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Quality/efficiency-wise, MPEG4 AVC > MPEG4 ASP > MPEG2. x264 is just an encoder for AVC (albeit an excellent one).

    What's more important is what your final intended output format is.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    My intended output is DVD.

    What program here works best to create an MPEG4 "AVC" from a standard mini-dv .avi file?

    Willing to try it, see what happens and directly compare it to what Premiere Pro CS 3 does.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Which format produces better quality overall MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or .x264?

    All are capable of equal quality. MPeg4 AVC h.264 and .x264 are capable of holding quality with greater compression but the opposite is true if you need to recode.

    DVD is MPeg2 by definition so avoid MPeg4 or .x264.
    https://www.videohelp.com/dvd
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  5. Yeah, if the intended final output is for DVD, then this is a more than pointless thread because you have no choice but MPEG-2.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by edDV
    MPeg4 AVC h.264 and .x264 are capable of holding quality with greater compression but the opposite is true if you need to recode.
    H.264 is certainly much more CPU-intensive to decode, but other than that it holds quality just fine whether you need to re-encode or not. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by creamyhorror
    Originally Posted by edDV
    MPeg4 AVC h.264 and .x264 are capable of holding quality with greater compression but the opposite is true if you need to recode.
    H.264 is certainly much more CPU-intensive to decode, but other than that it holds quality just fine whether you need to re-encode or not. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
    I'm suggesting

    DV -> MPeg2 (DVD)

    is less lossy than

    DV -> h.264 -> MPeg2 (DVD)
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  8. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    The more highly compressed the intermediate format (especially if it uses temporal compression), the faster it degrades with subsequent re-encoding. If you are working purely in a simple cut-edit mode then this isn't as big an issue, however if you are doing any sort of transition or video processing, you will suffer badly. Even having to re-encode to another lossy format (such as H264 -> Mpeg-2) will do more damage than going from a lesser compressed source.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  9. I get what you mean now, Ed. Thanks.

    Originally Posted by guns1inger
    The more highly compressed the intermediate format (especially if it uses temporal compression), the faster it degrades with subsequent re-encoding.
    I understand what you mean - intermediate codecs need to use only intra-frame compression to preserve maximum quality. However, leaving aside intra-frame compression, at any given bitrate, a more advanced codec will preserve more information than a less advanced one. That's really all I was saying.

    Introducing additional re-encode steps is obviously another matter altogether.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads