VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    as the title suggests, consider the following 2 scenarios:

    1) you will be paying for the encoder, under these circumstances where the dough comes out of your pocket, if you wanted an mpeg-2 encoder for hi def content (720p,1080i and 1080p), which of the following would you choose:

    ffmpeg
    mencoder
    hc encoder
    main concept h264 (despite the name also does mpeg-2)
    main concept reference
    tmpg plus 2.5
    tmpg express (latest version)
    tmpg authoring 4 (uses a different mpeg-2 encoding engine, as far as i can tell)
    cyberlink's power director (more of a complete editing solution but also encodes)
    elecard's encoder
    sony's vegas software
    ulead's software
    procoder (specify which version)
    gmpeg-2 (vfw gpu accelerated mpeg-2 codec specifically designed for HD)
    hardware based encoder (specify which one)
    something else (specify)

    i'm leaving cce out of this because none of the products do resolutions greater than 720x576, except for maybe their top of the line pro caliber 70+ grand product.

    2) same choices as above, only some one else will be paying for it (assume a rich uncle wants to give you a nice gift) and again, leave cce out of the running, only because i'm assuming that if someone else was footing the bill, everyone would choose cce's 70 thousand dollar professional setup, though i could be wrong.

    as a side note, i recently contacted sony and asked them if there was a demo of their professional level blu-ray product (blu-code) and they informed me that there will be a demo publicly available soon, so i can't wait to get a chance to try software that the pros use to make blu-rays).
    Quote Quote  
  2. 1) None of the above. I wouldn't use MPEG2 for HD content
    2) See #1

    :P
    Quote Quote  
  3. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    1) None of the above. I wouldn't use MPEG2 for HD content
    2) See #1

    :P
    really? so i'm guessing you're strictly an h264 guy, specifically x264? no vc-1 either?

    why?
    Quote Quote  
  4. It's not worth the space to use MPEG2. Haven't you learned anything from our previous discussions?

    VC-1 is closer than MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression, but still quite far away from h.264 (specifically x264), and is much much slower to encode

    Interlaced encoding is a different story. The massive advantages of using x264 are reduced. It's only slightly better than MPEG2 at HD type bitrates (still much better at low bitrates) for interlaced content, and probably not worth the extra time. I would use Mainconcept h.264 for interlaced content
    Quote Quote  
  5. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    I would use MainConcept Reference. I can pick MPEG-2 or AVC HD, both codecs can be added to it. That's not just what I would do, it's what I do do.

    Premiere CS4 would be another choice you left off. I'd actually pick that one first, to be honest.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  6. contrarian rallynavvie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Minnesotan in Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf
    I would use MainConcept Reference. I can pick MPEG-2 or AVC HD, both codecs can be added to it. That's not just what I would do, it's what I do do.

    Premiere CS4 would be another choice you left off. I'd actually pick that one first, to be honest.
    Last I checked Adobe Media Encoder was using the MainConcept engine. Is that no longer the case?
    FB-DIMM are the real cause of global warming
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    The following products use variations of Mainconcept's licenseced codecs. Mainconcept licenses from an a la carte SDK menu so not all products have the same features.

    Adobe CS Suite (several products)
    Cyberlink (various)
    Sony Vegas
    Ulead (various)
    plus several others you didn't list.
    http://www.mainconcept.com/site/developer-products-6/pc-based-sdks-20974/codec-sdk-209...ion-20962.html
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  8. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    It's not worth the space to use MPEG2. Haven't you learned anything from our previous discussions?

    VC-1 is closer than MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression, but still quite far away from h.264 (specifically x264), and is much much slower to encode

    Interlaced encoding is a different story. The massive advantages of using x264 are reduced. It's only slightly better than MPEG2 at HD type bitrates (still much better at low bitrates) for interlaced content, and probably not worth the extra time. I would use Mainconcept h.264 for interlaced content
    i thought we were in agreement that space considerations no longer matter now that 1.5tb hdd's can be had for about $100.

    the reality is that mpeg-4 gained traction because there was a time hdd's were kind of small (i remember when a 20gig hdd was considered huge), dvd burners were outrageously priced and broadband was a pipe dream for most people, so the only way they could "back up" dvd's and share them on the net was if they re-sized them them to a smaller resolution and used ridiculously low bit rates, levels where mpeg-2 was never meant to see.

    h264 really was meant as a way to bring high quality video at low bit rates to hand held devices like video ipods, but when you consider the humongous hard drives that are available at very reasonable prices, that blu-ray media holds either 25 or 50 gigs and that you can even buy thumb drives in the 128gig range, there's no reason to be stingy with the bit rate and once you get past a certain point h264 loses any advantage over mpeg-2 it had and if you consider the additional encode times i would say h264 is at a distinct disadvantage.

    on a related note, what do you think of this codec:

    http://www.on2.com/index.php?316

    Writing application : Lavf52.16.0
    Comment : FlixEngineLinux_8.0.14.0 (www.on2.com)

    i've seen a couple of encodes using this codec and even compared to x264 (with the source being a blu-ray rip), to my eyes at least, this seems to be the best h264 codec i have ever seen.
    Quote Quote  
  9. i thought we were in agreement that space considerations no longer matter now that 1.5tb hdd's can be had for about $100.
    We are. So you don't mind spending 2x as much money for blanks, hard drives etc.? Why even encode to MPEG2 then? Why not keep originals as 1:1?

    It's true with the lower cost of media, I don't even bother encoding blu-ray back ups, I just rip the main movie. But your question was "which MPEG2 encoder would you use?". My answer is none of them. I would never use MPEG2 unless I had to e.g. DVD-video. You should clarify what you intended to do, what your input and targets were, and for what purpose/goals. I avoid encoding anything if I can.

    The problem comes when you are making blu-ray discs on fixed media capacity. You can't fit the same amount of stuff if you used MPEG2. What you can fit on a BD25 if you used h.264, requires BD50 if you used MPEG2. There is a signicant price difference between BD25 and 50 right now.

    on a related note, what do you think of this codec:

    http://www.on2.com/index.php?316

    Writing application : Lavf52.16.0
    Comment : FlixEngineLinux_8.0.14.0 (www.on2.com)

    i've seen a couple of encodes using this codec and even compared to x264 (with the source being a blu-ray rip), to my eyes at least, this seems to be the best h264 codec i have ever seen.
    I have flixpro8, it's what I used to use for flash before succumbing to h.264. My version only has VP6, and it doesn't support h.264. I haven't seen any samples of on2's h.264 implementation, so I can't comment on it. I'm the type of person who needs proof. If it's the "best h264 codec" you have ever seen, Sorry, but I will remain skeptical until I have tested it out thoroughly myself.

    The next big thing from on2 is supposed to be VP8. Google bought them out. I've never seen a real sample of VP8, So I can't comment on it. If you have a sample with decoder, please post it.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by deadrats
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    It's not worth the space to use MPEG2. Haven't you learned anything from our previous discussions?

    VC-1 is closer than MPEG2 in terms of quality/compression, but still quite far away from h.264 (specifically x264), and is much much slower to encode

    Interlaced encoding is a different story. The massive advantages of using x264 are reduced. It's only slightly better than MPEG2 at HD type bitrates (still much better at low bitrates) for interlaced content, and probably not worth the extra time. I would use Mainconcept h.264 for interlaced content
    i thought we were in agreement that space considerations no longer matter now that 1.5tb hdd's can be had for about $100.

    the reality is that mpeg-4 gained traction because there was a time hdd's were kind of small (i remember when a 20gig hdd was considered huge), dvd burners were outrageously priced and broadband was a pipe dream for most people, so the only way they could "back up" dvd's and share them on the net was if they re-sized them them to a smaller resolution and used ridiculously low bit rates, levels where mpeg-2 was never meant to see.

    h264 really was meant as a way to bring high quality video at low bit rates to hand held devices like video ipods, but when you consider the humongous hard drives that are available at very reasonable prices, that blu-ray media holds either 25 or 50 gigs and that you can even buy thumb drives in the 128gig range, there's no reason to be stingy with the bit rate and once you get past a certain point h264 loses any advantage over mpeg-2 it had and if you consider the additional encode times i would say h264 is at a distinct disadvantage.

    on a related note, what do you think of this codec:

    http://www.on2.com/index.php?316

    Writing application : Lavf52.16.0
    Comment : FlixEngineLinux_8.0.14.0 (www.on2.com)

    i've seen a couple of encodes using this codec and even compared to x264 (with the source being a blu-ray rip), to my eyes at least, this seems to be the best h264 codec i have ever seen.
    I have 11TB+ and can see no reason to use the inefficient mpeg2 codec by choice, mpeg2 is an ancient relic older than DVD itself, mpeg4 is much more efficient

    ps. Are you saying that mpeg2 encodes significantly faster than h.264 or VC-1?, I have encoded dozens of blu ray movies and never noticed any codec encoding significantly faster than the other, but I have noticed that the mpeg2 blu rays are some of the largest, most bloated blu ray file sizes which if anything take longer to encode

    ocgw

    peace
    i7 2700K @ 4.4Ghz 16GB DDR3 1600 Samsung Pro 840 128GB Seagate 2TB HDD EVGA GTX 650
    https://forum.videohelp.com/topic368691.html
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by ocgw
    ps. Are you saying that mpeg2 encodes significantly faster than h.264 or VC-1?, I have encoded dozens of blu ray movies and never noticed any codec encoding significantly faster than the other, but I have noticed that the mpeg2 blu rays are some of the largest, most bloated blu ray file sizes which if anything take longer to encode
    But you are encoding your blu-ray sources to h.264 using x264 , correct? Not to MPEG2?

    You might be confusing encoding with decoding. MPEG2 encodes significantly faster than h.264 or VC-1. MPEG2 also decodes with significantly less CPU usage (it's less compressed with shorter GOP size, no deblocking, no CABAC), so more CPU cycles can be allocated to encoding, so yes, it should encode faster, decode faster ,and encode from faster. The only situation where this won't occur (in the absense of other bottlenecks) is if you use a source filter decoder from your graphics card e.g. DGNVTools, then the decode overhead is offloaded to the graphics card instead of CPU to decode the source to feed into the encoder
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    Originally Posted by ocgw
    ps. Are you saying that mpeg2 encodes significantly faster than h.264 or VC-1?, I have encoded dozens of blu ray movies and never noticed any codec encoding significantly faster than the other, but I have noticed that the mpeg2 blu rays are some of the largest, most bloated blu ray file sizes which if anything take longer to encode
    But you are encoding your blu-ray sources to h.264 using x264 , correct? Not to MPEG2?

    You might be confusing encoding with decoding. MPEG2 encodes significantly faster than h.264 or VC-1. MPEG2 also decodes with significantly less CPU usage (it's less compressed with shorter GOP size, no deblocking, no CABAC), so more CPU cycles can be allocated to encoding, so yes, it should encode faster, decode faster ,and encode from faster. The only situation where this won't occur (in the absense of other bottlenecks) is if you use a source filter decoder from your graphics card e.g. DGNVTools, then the decode overhead is offloaded to the graphics card instead of CPU to decode the source to feed into the encoder
    Yes, 95% of the time I am encoding blu ray sources (mpeg2, VC-1 and h.264) to h.264 using the x264 codec, you have to decode mpeg2 to encode it to h.264 right? I am saying that the blu rays encoded in mpeg2 are the biggest, most bloated blu rays that take the longest to decode, and reencode to h.264 w/ BD Rebuilder

    I just can't see why anyone would take a high def source, and convert it to mpeg2 unless they were converting it to DVD

    ocgw

    peace
    i7 2700K @ 4.4Ghz 16GB DDR3 1600 Samsung Pro 840 128GB Seagate 2TB HDD EVGA GTX 650
    https://forum.videohelp.com/topic368691.html
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by ocgw
    you have to decode mpeg2 to encode it to h.264 right?
    Yes, the source has to be decoded to feed into the encoder. This is true for h.264 and VC-1 (and every other format). MPEG2 is less CPU intensive for decoding, so it should free up more resources than an h.264 source. So encoding from an MPEG2 source should be faster than from an "equivalent" h.264 source if you are using CPU methods to decode the source, and in the absence of other bottlenecks.

    I am saying that the blu rays encoded in mpeg2 are the biggest, most bloated blu rays that take the longest to decode, and reencode to h.264 w/ BD Rebuilder
    Unless you have 2 versions of the exact same BD, 1 in h.264, 1 in MPEG2, this might be hard to compare.

    I just can't see why anyone would take a high def source, and convert it to mpeg2 unless they were converting it to DVD
    I agreed!
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    If you see no reason to use MPeg2 or other codecs, it only shows you aren't involved with video production. Video production always starts as close to uncompressed as you can afford because the clips are going to see one to many more generations before the release master and then another encode or two before before it hits the air.

    As for broadcast captures, I agree with deadrats and usually losslessly cut edit the HD MPeg2 for anything I intend to watch on the HDTV. Why waste time recoding and lowering quality? Yes every recode lowers quality.

    There is quite a bit I capture like news docs or financial reports that I capture to standard def DV, wmv or mpg. I want the information not the pretty pictures. I use DV for lightening fast timeline search. Not the low precision of most long GOP Mpg4.

    So yes, there are many uses for lower compressed codecs.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    I am saying that the blu rays encoded in mpeg2 are the biggest, most bloated blu rays that take the longest to decode, and reencode to h.264 w/ BD Rebuilder
    Why would you recode perfectly good MPeg2 unless your player can't play MPeg2?

    You would only do this if quality was second to file size.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  16. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Lots of the encoding questions on this site seem to devolve quickly because non-video people don't actually understand what compression is for. edDV, you get it. The others, not so much.

    It's another one of those black-and-white world viewpoints again, where people say something like this...
    Why even encode to MPEG2 then? Why not keep originals as 1:1?
    ... as if 1:1 uncompressed and uber-compressed H.264 are the only "logical" conclusions for video compression. There's a whole menu of encoding options out there, aimed for all kinds of video tasks. The world is shades of gray, not "black and white", not "with us or against us".

    My workflow can vary from YUY2 to HuffYUV to DV to MPEG-2 I-frame to MPEG-2 IP GOP to MPEG-2 DVD-Video to MPEG-TS to FLV to H.263 to H.264 ..... it really depends on the project. It can get more compressed, and less compressed, too. I'm continually amazed at how little folks actually understand MPEG-2 compression. Few have ever left the realm of MP@ML DVD-Video I-P-B-GOP spec encoding.

    But then, this is a hobby site. When your worldview is simply converting low-grade downloaded AVI to DVD, copying DVDs, and squeezing Blu-ray onto DVD media, I guess it's hard to expect much more.

    Since there seems to be some question about streaming quality
    - On2 8 encoder is not as good to MainConcept (H.264) and CS4 (FLV).
    - Squeeze (Win) sucks compared to MainConcept, very noisy/blocky encodes from Sorenson.
    - I can't get a stable version of Episode (Win), and I'm Mac-less at the moment.
    - Adobe CS3 (Win) was nice, CS4 (Win) is better -- yes, based on MainConcept.
    - Not worked with Vegas for a couple versions now. Also MainConcept
    - Quicktime's H.264 sucks.
    - x264 is okay, but still inferior to MainConcept. Command line is for the birds, GUI's often buggy.
    - Most of the cheapware and freeware are a joke, awful encoding.
    - Procoder is just a GUI, more or less, and not all that great.
    ..... I leave anything out?
    I've spent most of the last 10-11 months steeped in streaming encoding documents, specs, encoders, etc. Topics ranges from web to BD to broadcast, and often there was a ton of overlap.

    If it seems I'm picking on anybody, know that I'm not.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Deadrats I'd recommend HC for sure, But I wouldnt use that for HD, x264 makes more sense, but to each there own.

    x264 is okay, but still inferior to MainConcept. Command line is for the birds, GUI's often buggy. <<-- where do u get this sh*t? Your still trying to hawk people your piece of sh*t mainconcept encoder, when its clearly inferior to its freeware conterparts. (HC and x264). Dude you know next to nothing about encoding, but you claim to know it all, and give people your bad advice for a fee. You have a website, anyone who goes there to get advice has been duped into your bullsh*t. Your a tool nothing more and you should just leave it at that. And stop posting anywhere for that matter.
    Quote Quote  
  18. It's another one of those black-and-white world viewpoints again, where people say something like this...
    Why even encode to MPEG2 then? Why not keep originals as 1:1?
    ... as if 1:1 uncompressed and uber-compressed H.264 are the only "logical" conclusions for video compression. There's a whole menu of encoding options out there, aimed for all kinds of video tasks. The world is shades of gray, not "black and white", not "with us or against us".
    Since this was a quotation from my dialog, I will answer directly.

    Why assume that it's a black and white viewpoint? A 1:1 copy isn't the same thing as "uncompressed", but I'm sure you know that. The original topic was "which MPEG2 encoder would you choose..." I merely was suggesting there are other alternatives, because MPEG2 isn't necessarliy the best choice for every workflow. There are other options, and it would depend on many factors and your goals. If you had bothered to read the next sentence instead of making assumptions:

    you should clarify what you intended to do, what your input and targets were, and for what purpose/goals. I avoid encoding anything if I can.
    As for your streaming assessment, I agree except for your evaluation of x264 being inferior to MainConcept's h.264 implementation. I have used the Mainconcept SDK which is far superior than the hobbled encoder bundled with CS4 or Mainconcept Reference, and even that is signicantly worse than x264 under all scenarios. I have posted many threads and comparisons, examples, etc... Sources and settings are all available for anyone to test themselves. I swear smurfy, you must be a DivX shareholder. But I guess we can agree to disagree

    Cheers
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    One other ... Bbmpeg ... it dose handle higher resolutions ... and still use it today

    This is an opinion based upon the posts original title ... x264 otherwise
    Quote Quote  
  20. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    MainConcept needs to saturate the market with some consumer encoders that look great, but only at a few presets. Set it at like $30 to compete with the other crapware.

    "MainConcept YouEncoder", best quality, industry standard, with presets made specifically for Youtube and similar streaming video sites. Only $29.99

    Same for a consumer MPEG encoder, maybe integrated into basic editor based off the one they used to have...
    "MainConcept Camera to DVD Converter". Only $49.99. Have it attuned to a dozen or so normal rigid presets.

    Want more? Buy Sony/Adobe consumer apps, or go further and get pro versions (or versions included in pro NLE).

    It would answer the OP's problem pretty well.

    ... then maybe I'd buy some DivX stock.

    I'm still sort of pissed they abandoned MPEG capturing, pitched it out with MC 1.4. They started to expand, but then shrunk back.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Moon
    Search Comp PM
    Just to throw it in the mix, Magix Movie Edit Pro and also the new Womble EasyDVD both use Mainconcept also.

    Bjs... Bbmpeg is an interesting old encoder! Can I ask why you still use it, and not switched to say HC or something? Habit? Or is Bbmpeg quality truly up there? I'd like to see some comparisons! I always liked QuEnc's quality, but I believe it suffered from some bit-rate spikes (?), also it isn't developed no more. I use HC myself and have never had complaints, it seems to be extremely "DVD compliant". Also the matrix you use can make a slight difference I think.
    Quote Quote  
  22. aBigMeanie aedipuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    666th portal
    Search Comp PM
    bbmpeg wasn't all that good at mpeg-2 10 years ago. tmpgenc 2.5 made it's output look bad. about all most people used it for was cutting video, it did that well.
    --
    "a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
    Quote Quote  
  23. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    My vote goes to mpeg2enc

    (only because nobody had mentioned it so far. )
    Quote Quote  
  24. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    i thought we were in agreement that space considerations no longer matter now that 1.5tb hdd's can be had for about $100.
    We are. So you don't mind spending 2x as much money for blanks, hard drives etc.? Why even encode to MPEG2 then? Why not keep originals as 1:1?

    It's true with the lower cost of media, I don't even bother encoding blu-ray back ups, I just rip the main movie. But your question was "which MPEG2 encoder would you use?". My answer is none of them. I would never use MPEG2 unless I had to e.g. DVD-video. You should clarify what you intended to do, what your input and targets were, and for what purpose/goals. I avoid encoding anything if I can.
    i'm not backing up anything, if i was i wouldn't be transcoding, to me "backing up" means just that: make an exact 1:1 copy.

    as for what specifically i'm doing, assume that someone was a huge steelers fan and further assume he had a good friend that happened to have the football package where he gets every game played each week. now further assume that this friend was nice enough to capture all the steelers games, along with some of the more exciting match ups like the recent saints/dolphins game and assume that the steelers fan would go get a copy of said games from his friend on a large thumb drive.

    now assume that some editing was done to remove the commercials and also assume that the captures where in 1920x1080i format and said steelers fan wanted to remove the interlacing so he would end up cutting out the commercials and then using tmpg express 4 he would output the result to 1280x720p and desiring the widest possible compatibility, he chooses to use mpeg-2 with ac3 audio.

    on a related note, what would be the best way to remove interlacing? also, is there enough data to go from 1080i to 1080p or is 720p a better option? on the subject of frame rate, is there enough data to go from 1080i30 to 720p60? would it be better to handle deinterlacing with an avisynth script or is it better to use one of tmpg expresses built in deinterlacing filters?
    Quote Quote  
  25. Why re-encode? => lowers quality

    Why deinterlace? => lowers quality

    Since filesize isn't a consideration, why not use something like videoredo? No quality loss, you keep the temporal resolution, takes less time, no re-encoding (except maybe a few frames round the cutsite)

    But to partly answer your ther question, in general, you have more options and variety of deinterlacers with avisynth. Some of them are very very slow , but much better quality than TMPGEnc's deinterlacers
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    My 2 cents.

    First, how do you intend to watch the result? HDTV? 60Hz/120Hz/240Hz? or other?

    1080p/60 just makes the file larger with no benefit. 1080i fields are 1920x960 at 59.94 rate. That makes 1280x720p/59.94 fps an attractive target for HDTV or computer viewing. 1280x720p/29.97 fps from odd or even fields halves the bit rate and avoids deinterlace artifacts but also halves the motion samples for play analysis.

    If a 120/240 Hz HDTV is the target, there is a strong case for leaving it unedited 1080i. The HDTV will do the field to frame interpolation work for you and you can skip through the commercials to save prep time.

    If the source is ABC/FOX/ESPN, you have 1280x720p/59.94 on direct capture.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray
    Originally Posted by ocgw
    you have to decode mpeg2 to encode it to h.264 right?
    Yes, the source has to be decoded to feed into the encoder. This is true for h.264 and VC-1 (and every other format). MPEG2 is less CPU intensive for decoding, so it should free up more resources than an h.264 source. So encoding from an MPEG2 source should be faster than from an "equivalent" h.264 source if you are using CPU methods to decode the source, and in the absence of other bottlenecks.

    I am saying that the blu rays encoded in mpeg2 are the biggest, most bloated blu rays that take the longest to decode, and reencode to h.264 w/ BD Rebuilder
    Unless you have 2 versions of the exact same BD, 1 in h.264, 1 in MPEG2, this might be hard to compare.

    I just can't see why anyone would take a high def source, and convert it to mpeg2 unless they were converting it to DVD
    I agreed!
    I have 400+ blu rays, trust me when I say that in my experience mpeg2 blu rays average the largest file size after demuxing to main movie and are usually the ones that need reencoding to fit on a SL BD

    ocgw

    peace
    i7 2700K @ 4.4Ghz 16GB DDR3 1600 Samsung Pro 840 128GB Seagate 2TB HDD EVGA GTX 650
    https://forum.videohelp.com/topic368691.html
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by edDV
    I am saying that the blu rays encoded in mpeg2 are the biggest, most bloated blu rays that take the longest to decode, and reencode to h.264 w/ BD Rebuilder
    Why would you recode perfectly good MPeg2 unless your player can't play MPeg2?

    You would only do this if quality was second to file size.
    To fit a blu ray backup on a BD-25

    ocgw

    peace
    i7 2700K @ 4.4Ghz 16GB DDR3 1600 Samsung Pro 840 128GB Seagate 2TB HDD EVGA GTX 650
    https://forum.videohelp.com/topic368691.html
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    ZQX ... only because its never once thrown an error or failed to mux source Ive created ... even when the output resolutions where outside those commonly known for mpeg1 / mpeg2 ... never any issues unlike some others.

    Second because most of my scripts where built before hc, quenc arrived ... guess Im just too lazy to change one single line of code, lol ...

    Ive used them both 10/10 ...

    In comparison it depends on the material and the encoders settings for final output ... without tinkering Ive see some encodes from both appear slightly better that what was produced by old bbmpeg ... hc with matrix editing is a good choice if indeed quenc is no longer developed ... a real pity that good work is literally thrown away.

    Tmpgenc ... Id set the system on fire before allowing that application in ... it would produce errors on material bbmpeg, ifoedit, dvdauthorgui had no issues with

    Third is keeping compatibility ... yes there are still people with systems running less than xp / 2000

    Been giving x264 a run ... needs more work and free applications to handle it properly

    PS: Matrix editing is no mans land ... me in particular, lol

    Recently only noticed bbmpeg quits soon after source added ... bet its that rotten sp3 again or its siblings

    Well HC and Quenc are backups so I guess I better change that line ... searching 4 terabytes for 1 line of code ... priceless
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!