VideoHelp Forum




Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44
  1. Hi everyone,


    My question is simple and I hope to get some good answers. I have been working on a project to capture my VHS home movie collection to put on DVDs. What I want to know is what is the very best software Mpeg2 encoder available today for image quality?

    I was using CCE, however Lordsmurf and others feel that it is lacking significantly and is a relic of years past. The two that seem to be popular today are MainConcept Reference and Procoder. Specifically, Procoder seems to be highly recommended specifically for interlaced sources.

    I am transferring VHS videos, which are entirely interlaced.

    I am well aware that there are threads that have discussed and compared encoders, however many are several years old and I desperately want some advice about which is the very best to use TODAY.

    I have been fairly well convinced that CCE and TMPGEnc are not up to the standards of Procoder and MainConcept. There may be others that I am unaware of.

    I am looking for a comparison between MainConcept Reference 2.2 (the latest version) and Procoder 3 (also the latest version). Is Procoder superior for interlaced sources? Is Procoder encoding in "Mastering" mode the best quality that can be achieved? Is there another encoder that you would recommend?

    So, I really want an updated discussion on what the very best encoder and settings and methods would be in June 2011 for encoding captured video.

    Please let me know. Thanks a lot.

  2. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    The free HCEnc is a very good encoder, especially at lower bitrates. ProCoder is so-so and seems to be very source dependent - when I was using ProCoder 2 I often found Mastering Mode to be inferior to custom setups. CCE is prone to mosquito noise. Mainconcept Reference is probably the best on your list.

    Look seriously at HCEnc though.
    Read my blog here.

  3. This used to be a hot topic around here, with MPEG2 encoder tests from time to time. I was always skeptical about what examining single frames could tell you, but hey, others here know more about this than me.

    I've at least tried them all, although older versions, so I'm not up to date. I still use TMPGEnc from time to time, although it's slow due to the RGB conversion. Yeah, CCE is prone to mosquito noise if flat part priority settings aren't quite right.

    Anyway, what guns said is spot on. HCEnc is really good at low bitrates. I did my own test once with DVDRB using CCE versus HCEnc. This is one of the few times I was instantly convinced that one encode was definitely better. You didn't have to look very hard, it was obvious.
    Pull! Bang! Darn!

  4. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    I switched to HCenc some years ago because CCE couldn't do encoding on resolutions larger than DVD. I've never regretted it. CCE was actually an excellent quality encoder that could deliver professional results. TMPGenc is just a cheap encoder. It's easy to use and there is a lot to be said for that, but it tends to get block noise on scene changes and it doesn't stay within the bit rate specifications you give it.

    Honestly, I'm a little skeptical about your post as just about everybody here does NOT use Procoder or Main Concept. HCenc is free. Could you not just try it and see what you think rather than demanding proof of some sort of head to head comparison test? Do note though that HCenc is NOT a hand holding easy-peasy kind of encoder. You have to have marginal AviSynth ability to write a script that can feed your video into it. But AviSynth gives you access to all kinds of filters and you can do some pretty cool stuff with it and pass that on to HCenc for excellent results.

  5. Originally Posted by guns1inger View Post
    The free HCEnc is a very good encoder, especially at lower bitrates. ProCoder is so-so and seems to be very source dependent - when I was using ProCoder 2 I often found Mastering Mode to be inferior to custom setups. CCE is prone to mosquito noise. Mainconcept Reference is probably the best on your list.

    Look seriously at HCEnc though.
    Yes, the "mosquito noise" was one of the things that turned me off to CCE, apart from the fact that it is rather old compared to newer encoders.

    From what I have gathered, Procoder 1.0 was a favorite of many but 2.0 was a step back in many ways. Do you know if 3.0 is much better?

    I will certainly look at HCEnc, though you should understand that for my interests cost is not an issue therefore I am only interested in the performance and image quality. So the fact that HCEnc is free compared to the several hundred dollar MainConcept Reference does not sway me one way or another.

    Thanks for your response.

  6. Why is CCE considered "old ?" Did you see there is a new SP3 version out?

    What kind of criteria? You mention performance, but what kind ? encoding speed ?

    You mention image quality, but what kind ? e.g. some encoders might have relatively poorer quality b-frames, or poor quantization in low luminance areas, or might do better in gradients, or poor I:P:B ratios and fluctations in quality, etc.... Each has strengths and weaknesses, and there are many criteria you can rank them on. "Quality" is also very subjective, two people might rank one completely differently, even on the same criterion

    So you might consider doing some testing on typical sources that you will be using and looking with your own eyes. What you consider higher image quality might be entirely different than what "person B" thinks.

    Also mentioned earlier, I think you will find "quality" will be very source dependent. For example, some encoders will fare differently for say a grainy source compared to a clean source. Some will retain fine details better than others. But maybe you source doesn't even have fine details.... you get the idea


    Did you consider SD blu-ray as another option ? One of the main concerns of DVD (especially VHS sourced DVD's), is the relative ineffectiveness of MPEG2 with those bitrates. On your typical handheld home movies, often you will see pixellation and macroblocking as the bitrate is not enough given that compression. Not only are you allowed higher MPEG2 bitrates using blu-ray media, you can use much better AVC compression as well.

  7. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jman98 View Post
    Honestly, I'm a little skeptical about your post as just about everybody here does NOT use Procoder or Main Concept. HCenc is free.
    That's because this is an amateur video site, by and large. Not because the software is in any way bad or inferior. It just costs more than most people can spend.

    I frequently see encoder tests, about twice per year. (Yes, that is frequent.) Not online, no, but in trade publications -- and yes, freeware is often in the mix. These are tests performed by video pros, not the standard goobers I've seen in various forums. In those tests, MainConcept is, and has been for years now, the top dog.

    Squeeze, Episode, Compressor, Procoder, some hardware, some freeware, etc.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 30th Jun 2011 at 07:26.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  8. Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post
    Hi everyone,

    ...What I want to know is what is the very best software Mpeg2 encoder available today for image quality?

    I was using CCE, however Lordsmurf and others feel that it is lacking significantly and is a relic of years past. The two that seem to be popular today are MainConcept Reference and Procoder. Specifically, Procoder seems to be highly recommended specifically for interlaced sources.

    I am transferring VHS videos, which are entirely interlaced....

    I have been fairly well convinced that CCE and TMPGEnc are not up to the standards of Procoder and MainConcept.


    I am looking for a comparison between MainConcept Reference 2.2 (the latest version) and Procoder 3 (also the latest version). Is Procoder superior for interlaced sources? Is Procoder encoding in "Mastering" mode the best quality that can be achieved? Is there another encoder that you would recommend?

    Please let me know. Thanks a lot.
    The choice of The Best MPEG-II encoder depends on where exactly you want to trade-off, a highly professional grade output or just quite satisfactory output as a hobbyist, plus nature of your job is solely commercial production or just video dvd home-made production for family, friends, relatives or nearly customers.

    As a professional, for commercial production I would go for GV - ProCoder which offers lots of built-in features and filters.
    That's why ProCoder might be the best for interlaced source.

    For a semi-professional job I would prefer MainConcept because of high quality output at fairly high speed plus affordable price, of-course. Less built-in features as compared to GV ProCoder. Mostly lots of mid-priced video editors use MainConcept encoder as a back-bone. You can try one by looking at their specs.

    As a Hobbyist - I would rather love the best freebies around.
    Eventhough HcEnc is FREE, it offers much more features as compared to near-by commercial mpeg-2 encoders, where as your quality of output solely depends on the avisynth filters selection. If you mess-up with filter selections, probably you gonna blame HcEnc. I have successfully beaten almost all professional encoders at lower bit-rates with HCEnc, and it is also true that professional encoders are not meant for lower bit-rates coz in commercial production higher bit rate is not a big deal, but definitely quality is! For higher bit rate freebie runner-up is QuEnc.
    Last edited by Bonie81; 28th Jun 2011 at 22:39.

  9. Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post
    Yes, the "mosquito noise" was one of the things that turned me off to CCE, apart from the fact that it is rather old compared to newer encoders.
    Then you don't know how to use it properly. As fritzi93 said, adjust your settings. Generally, most encoders won't work optimally using the same default settings for all kinds of sources. With decently low Qs, it's not a problem. If it is, use a lower bitrate quantisation matrix. Try and do that with most of the others. Try and use adaptive matrix switching with most of them. As for it being old, that's just nonsensical. The latest update of the most recent SP3 was just over 2 weeks ago.

  10. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry manono, but that's a cop-out. CCE has well-known, well-document issues with noisy encoding. And yes, it's updated -- but it's still basically the same crappy encoder from 2001. From what I've observed, I think Custom Tech is in for some major butt hurt, with years of competing products eroding their once mighty market share. For example, they're focusing on mobile video now. (Yes, same company.)

    MC Reference's MPEG-2 encoder costs $550. It's far from "mid priced" software. The consumer apps and mid-range apps using MC are using limited SDK versions. Still good, but not highly tweakable.

    Procoder had a reputation for being good at "field" encoding -- which isn't the same as interlace. But because interlace has fields, people confuse the terminology. Sort of like 240 lines for VHS and 352x240 VCD, and people thinking the 240 was "the same" (it's not).

    I'm running video in Avid and in ProRes right now, and it's about to be pushed out to MainConcept. I stare at these encoders for hours per day sometimes. Daily time is spent with short encode tests, to optimize the settings for the content. Not really my idea of fun, but it's what I do. For obvious reason, I try to stay on top of current tech. I'm a bit of an info whore, and have subs to several trade pubs for this specific reason.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 30th Jun 2011 at 07:32.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  11. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Hcenc was very good when I tried it but the one thing I hate about it is no minimum bitrate box (unless I missed it). When that is set to zero blocky fades to black happened every time.

    This thread came along just as I was thinking cce was very transparent but I am clueless about this stuff. I didn't see a lot of mosquito noise. I might check out some comparisons now. When I tried Main concept it sucked but that was several years ago.
    down with 4% speedup

  12. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by PAL sucks View Post
    When I tried Main concept it sucked but that was several years ago.
    Prior to Reference, it had some issues
    v1.0 to 1.3 were not great (soft, blocks)
    v1.4 was better (slight soft)
    v1.5 fixed most everything (still slight noise issues, like CCE)
    v1.6 was the beginning of Reference (perfect)
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 30th Jun 2011 at 07:27.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  13. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Originally Posted by PAL sucks View Post
    When I tried Main concept it sucked but that was several years ago.
    Prior to Reference, it had some issues
    v1.0 to 1.3 were not great (soft, blocks)
    v1.4 was better (slight soft)
    v1.5 fixed most everything (still slight noise issues, like CCE)
    v1.6 was the beginning of Reference (perfect)
    So, Mainconcept Reference is your encoder of choice for nearly all video? Do you ever use Procoder anymore? I have seen a few posts in the past where your preference was Procoder, specifically 1.5. 2.0 was supposed to be a disappointment in some ways. Have you used Procoder 3.0? Are there any instances where you would choose Procoder (or any other encoder) over MainConcept?

    Thanks for your input.

  14. Don't listen to lordsmurf, he's what we like to call a basehead. Anyways the best encoder is CCE SP3, its a professional encoder that costs $1000. It's multithreaded now, so it uses all cores of your processor (atleast the 4 I have). The next best is HCenc it's similar to quality of CCE but has problems what flat dark areas kinda like xvid. Which tend to be blocky even at higher bitrates when it shouldn't be blocky. Procoder isn't a piece of crap, but I wouldn't consider it a good encoder. And then there's the rest that include mainconcept, which i consider crap encoders. If you want a more knowledgeable forums about mpeg2 encoders goto doom9.org. Smart people are there not lordsmurf. Where do you see these encoder tests twice a year, provide proof.

  15. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by souper View Post
    If you want a more knowledgeable forums about mpeg2 encoders goto doom9.org. Smart people are there not lordsmurf.
    If you don't want to listen to me, then seek advice from other professionals in the broadcasting, encoding and content delivery fields. Suggesting one hobby/amateur forum over another is ridiculous. And no, this is not a slight against VH or doom9 -- but there's an obvious gap in the demographics here, as opposed to somewhere like CreativeCow or DVinfo. Find the people that encode to/from ProRes, DNxHD, Cineform, SDI and other ingest formats. To a lesser degree, also consider those who work with BetacamSP, S-VHS, U-matic, VHS, Hi8, DV, etc. Not assclowns that start from "some AVI files I downloaded".

    Please also note that "souper" is some peckerwood that only registered here to mouth off to me last year. As pointed out at that time, he was probably banned at some point in the past.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 30th Jun 2011 at 07:32.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  16. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jrodefeld View Post
    So, Mainconcept Reference is your encoder of choice for nearly all video? Do you ever use Procoder anymore?
    For almost all MPEG-2 and H.264, yes.

    Have you used Procoder 3.0?
    No. No need.

    Are there any instances where you would choose Procoder (or any other encoder) over MainConcept?
    Procoder? NLE export from legacy systems.
    Other encoders? All the time. Lots of formats to work with.

    Other respectable encoders include Squeeze, Compressor, Episode. (But do note some of those also use MainConcept engines.) Many years ago, Cleaner would have made the list, too. Some people used to really like BitVice, too, but I found it to be too unstable.

    _______________________________________________

    The biggest issue with "CCE" is that people hear "CinemaCraft" was used in a "Hollywood" facility, and then just assume it was CCE-SP. It's not. CCE-SP is the low end product, and generally regarded as way overpriced and noisy. It's the advanced online systems (i.e., hardware tied) that are used by a facility. The most common user of CCE-SP is, in my opinion, the people who have the cracked copies. And yes, compared to most of the garbage that passes for a consumer encoder, it's easily the "best" to their limited understanding of the encoding world.

    Look at the wikipedia entry, for goodness sake! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Craft_Encoder
    "CCE is well known for its use as the de-facto standard in Scene DVD-R releases[9]."
    So heavy usage by the underground/bootleg community is supposed to be some sort of award? Seriously?

    So keep that in mind.

    In the grand scheme of things, MainConcept is mid-ranged. But you'll still have to peel off a few bills to own it. If you want a better encoder setup, you'll need to take out a second mortgage.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 30th Jun 2011 at 07:59.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  17. Where do you see these encoder tests twice a year? provide proof.

  18. "souper" is Gargamel ?

    /joke



    Some common criticisms of many industry publications is that they don't conduct thorough tests and they certainly aren't transparent. They don't provide sources, samples, and tend cherry pick results. Transparent implies anybody should be able to reproduce the results with the settings and software used. This is a must for any type of objective testing. Many of them are sponsored by X,Y,Z companies which raises questions about objectivity. Often they are geared towards other criteria , like usabilty (things like watch folders), speed, integration, not necessarily quality. They often look at only 1 measure, something like PSNR, or they look at single frame comparisons. Very rarely do they look at the whole picture or even part of the whole picture. But even poorly conducted tests can be of value, as long as you know how to interpret them in context.

    If you look at the "underground/illegal/bootleg community", they have access to every type of software and probably unreleased software too, but yet they usually choose CCE according to wikipedia. They could just as easily chose A, B, C encoder. Why do you think that is? However, this is not applicable here as most illegal stuff would be progressive content. Most studio releases are progressive content. I haven't seen any good recent tests on interlaced content with VHS material sources. That is a small niche and specific scenario.

    Does anybody think pros actually base their decisions on what someone in some forum or magazine said? They might take it into consideration, but most conduct their own tests going through the entire workflow. This applies to hardware as well software or any purchase. Do you buy a car without test driving it? You get the idea.

    Bottom line: conduct some tests on representative content.
    Image Attached Images  

  19. Bazinga! MJPollard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wixom, Michigan, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by souper View Post
    Where do you see these encoder tests twice a year? provide proof.
    From what I can tell, LordSmurf doesn't have to prove a goddamn thing to you, if for no other reason than he didn't come into this thread and start acting like a prick. Go outside and play with your poop until you grow up.
    Don't sweat the petty things, just pet the sweaty things.

  20. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by souper View Post
    Don't listen to lordsmurf, he's what we like to call a basehead.
    before i say anything allow me to say that i don't know the smurf personally, am not him posting under a different name and there have been times in the past when i have disagreed with things he may have said.

    be that as it may, there are some people on these forums that are quite knowledgeable, have quite a bit of experience and have solid a solid command of the subject matter; EdDv (i think that's his screen name), jagabo, the death ray, manono (though he does come off like a dick at times), there's quite a few others that belong on that list and the smurfster is on that list as well.

    with regards to mpeg-2 videos, i tend to favor legally free software, so i like HCenc (plus it's one of the few apps that is coded in fortran, that takes some programming chops, really wish he would release the source or try to port it to CUDA fortran) and i also like ffmpeg (many commercial apps use that code against the GPL).

    in so far as main concept's software is concerned, considering how many commercial apps, including those targeted at the pros/semi pros, use the sdk one has to conclude that it must be pretty good.

    here's the reality check though, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; if your source is crappy i don't care what encoder you use, you should expect a pristine encode. if your source is of the downloaded variety, either legal or illegal, more than likely any dvd created from that source will be of significantly lower quality than a dvd created by a reputable authoring house from a studio quality master.

    with regards to specific encoders, i tend to agree with the smurf that CCE's following seems to result from wide spread usage within the bootleg community; CCE was a) cheap (the consumer versions) b) widely available in pirated form c) allowed one to make multiple pass encodes and i remember reading one post after another where people would do up to 9 passes (a ridiculous thing to do) and d) most importantly fast as hell, generally the fastest mpeg-2 encoder you are likely to find.

    procoder 1 was a pretty sweet little encoder, offered quality that rivaled most any software encoder you can name, was fast, almost as fast as CCE; procoder 2 was generally considered a step down, many user complained about it though considering how wide spread the piracy rate was i would venture to say that most people had no business complaining, procoder 3 isn't bad but it is kind of old and has been surpassed.

    despite all the above, if i was dealing with really high quality sources, then i would use intel's Quick Sync to encode either mpeg-2 or h264; intel spent 5 years and a billion dollars developing the technology, i don't think intel put a bunch of dummies to engineer the hardware. the only thing holding Quick Sync back is that no one has decided to code an encoder that makes full use of all the hardware's features; i actually tried to put together an encoder, using at first VB and then Lazarus to create the front end but i had to be honest with myself and realize that it would take more experience with working with the win api to fully exploit the sdk, though in all honesty it does look like intel has made it easy for an experienced windows programmer to build a complete app.

    the day an open source app is released that makes complete use of the Quick Sync sdk for decode and encode as well as pre/post processing of video, i thing that will be the end of most software based encoders as well as the use of amd cpu's by video professionals.

  21. hi folks....
    little funny....
    it might not be a PARADOX, but, just heard recently, in this cutting EDGE and multi CORE techology all these very high priced > U$ 500+ encoders (in spite of being buggy), lay a golden egg when done with encoding, so think AGAiN, which one you gonna use?

    While i would prefer to hang-out with hankies.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PS: Use your favorite one, but, avoid personal comments. Plz.
    Anyone can express any damn ideas... No need to stop him/her.

  22. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Some common criticisms of many industry publications is that they don't conduct thorough tests and they certainly aren't transparent. They don't provide sources, samples, and tend cherry pick results. Transparent implies anybody should be able to reproduce the results with the settings and software used.
    This was a big problem back from 2000-2005, most definitely, but I've really not seen it since then. The problem with many of those pubs is ad leaks into op/ed now, and nobody is willing to call a bad product "junk" when needed. It's given a "B" or "C" grade, criticized as "not being up to expectations", and then the writing guidelines require a few positive comments -- and you're not allowed to be facetious about it (i.e, "Well, it did come in a pretty box!"). The outcome is it comes off as better than it deserves. I saw a lot of that for Sorenson and Apple back in 2006-2007, when their attempts at H.264 was more like video butchering than video encoding. And it's probably because both of those orgs are deep pockets for ads.

    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Does anybody think pros actually base their decisions on what someone in some forum or magazine said? They might take it into consideration, but most conduct their own tests going through the entire workflow. This applies to hardware as well software or any purchase.
    Yep. Exactly.

    procoder 3 isn't bad but it is kind of old and has been surpassed
    Interesting that you say that. The thing about Procoder 3 is that I'm not entirely convinced it's not just GV's facelift to what could have been called Procoder 2.1.

    in this cutting EDGE and multi CORE techology all these very high priced > U$ 500+ encoders
    This is the general complaint against most of the encoders -- not using enough cores, not being good with using multi cores, and not using GPU acceleration. While it's a fair request, it's an unfair complaint. The hardware is outpacing software, and it's honestly always been that way. There's also a lot of misunderstanding among users, such as # cores vs per-core speed.

    the "underground/illegal/bootleg community", they have access to every type of software and probably unreleased software too
    Most people in that crowd have limited knowledge and skills. There's a reason most underground video looks like butchered crap. Of the non-pros that do have skills, the skills are generally NOT in encoding, but rather in filtering (Avisynth, VirtualDub, Avidemux, etc -- the devs, plugin writers, and advanced users such as yourself). Their sources are all over the map, and professional tools are severely lacking. (I'd love to meet the Adobe Premiere production team and flat out ask them "Are you ******* kidding me?" -- a reference to the various NR and other non-color correction filters. NLE filters, excluding color correction, are a joke.) So while many amateurs have earned their credibility in the video world, testing encoders usually isn't one of them. Most homebrew encoders/codecs are reverse engineered professional apps -- hardly what I'd call a breakthrough contribution to the video scene. In fact, it's poor use of the rev/eng stuff that gave source code to all the Chinese $30 crapware makers.

    If I come off as elitist in some way, that's not the intention. Just keep perspective.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 30th Jun 2011 at 20:24.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  23. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    In fact, it's poor use of the rev/eng stuff that gave source code to all the Chinese $30 crapware makers.
    i actually believe you're wrong about that, at least partially; i don't believe for a second these guys were/are experienced enough to reverse engineer professional apps, the pros generally use code obfuscation techniques to thwart their IP from being RE'd, they simply rape the GPL, specifically ffmpeg and mplayer code bases and in many cases, such as Xilisoft/ImToo and offshoots, they don't take any steps to hide what they did.

    i just downloaded the latest Xilisoft demo and checked to see what files are installed, among the installed dll's are xvidcore.dll, SDL.dll, devil.dll, ffmpegsource2.dll, avcodec.dll (<--i assume you know what this one is). with some of these chinese-ware apps they at least try to hide what they did by renaming the dll's but for the most part they just rip off the open source community.

    that's one of the main reasons i have no problem with someone "pirating" said software, these guys pirated it first by taking open source software and trying to make it proprietary.

  24. It's down right now, but FFMPEG has a "Hall of Shame" which lists many software violators. There are (were) hundreds of software companies who didn't abide by the rules

    If you take out a commercial license, and pay MPEG-LA licensing fees, it's perfectly legit to use some of those libraries



    Anyways, we are getting a bit off topic...

    I believe the topic was: (paraphrasing)

    "What is the best MPEG2 encoder today for interlaced VHS sources" or something along those lines

    I agree with what deadrats said earlier, garbage in = garbage out. There is not going to be a huge difference between the top software encoders. You're better off spending cash on hardware, TBC, and learning how to prepare the content. That will make huge difference in "quality", especially given your VHS source.

  25. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    i actually believe you're wrong about that, at least partially;
    Nope, not wrong on this. (In fact, I think you may have misunderstood me.) FFmpeg, for example, reverse engineers codecs. As an example, read https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37615 (found via quick Google search). In turn, FFmpeg is then "borrowed" by the crapware and copyware (FFmpeg clones, freeware based on FFmpeg, etc). The real benefit of FFmpeg existing is how libraries were used for VLC, MPlayer, etc -- giving us the option to avoid codec installs, and relying on self-sufficient players. I don't know that FFmpeg has done much for us in the way of encoding technologies.

    A lot of people claim "freeware is better than payware", often not realizing the the freeware is based on the payware. Without one (payware), the other (freeware) would have never existed. I'm often reminded of the amateur bloggers who have disdain for the so-called "mainstream" media, while at the same time they're basically stealing the professional writing/investigative work as the basis for their unqualified mind vomit (the blog).

    It's off-topic, yes -- but at the same time, it's still on-topic. Threads like this often get bombarded by spam and low-end software suggestions. By pointing out that the "real" encoders were the model for the cheap/free ones, we've basically performed a preemptive strike on the bad advice.

    garbage in = garbage out. There is not going to be a huge difference between the top software encoders. You're better off spending cash on hardware, TBC, and learning how to prepare the content. That will make huge difference in "quality", especially given your VHS source.
    Yep.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  26. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    @lordsmurf:

    that's actually kind of funny, i knew that the old divx was a RE'd microsoft mpeg-4 codec, and i knew that xvid resulted from taking the opendivx code and forking it when it went closed source but i didn't realize that ffmpeg had RE'd codecs.

    it's kind of funny that they should effectively steal someone else's IP then put up a hall of shame to out people tha steal their IP.

    "there's no honor among thieves".

    just too funny.

  27. When I sneak into my "pirate-enthu" friend's PC who feels the pride of having or collecting commercial-wares, I normally see bunch OpenSource libraries like xvidcore, avutils, libav, ffmpeg or mencoder running behind the "so-called" commercial wares.

    What is the use of stealing OpenSource libraries and hiding commercial ware source, which is not written from the scratch?

    And most of the time OpenSource Applications serves the purpose, only things need to know what to apply and where to apply.
    In very few cases you need to trigger really... i mean really professional applications.

  28. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    For me, it's not necessarily a "right or wrong" situation, but a "shades of gray" scenario.

    To be quite blunt about it, having to install tons of codecs system-wide to simply watch video was (and still is) complete bullshit. Libraries borne from the FFmpeg/mplayer projects helped us avoid that stupid behavior, giving us players like VLC and others. That was not really a situation of "ripping off" the developers as much as it was a scenario of creating the next generation in a/v computing. The proprietary nature of playback codecs (no ability to library) was arrogant and ridiculous by the patent holders, and the rev/eng'd and "librarying" of them was a good thing for everybody.

    Encoders, on the other hand, are mostly created as a way to avoid for paying for the original software. There are obvous exceptions, like Huffyuv, or even the commendable releases of proprietary codecs by Matrox. Compare that to Apple, who has a death grip on ProRes -- a codec that is good, and would likely be crappy if rev/eng'd.

    What makes it really amusing is when the commercial software starts to also use the freeware. And when that has happened, several times we've seen the freeware developers crying foul. Ain't that a kick in the pants!
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS

  29. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    What makes it really amusing is when the commercial software starts to also use the freeware. And when that has happened, several times we've seen the freeware developers crying foul. Ain't that a kick in the pants!
    Like TMPGenc going to x264.

    I have had very good results with TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 despite its age. Then again when I do home movie transfers I max out the bitrate and only put an hour of video on a DVD tops. Even noisy sources like video shot with a BetaMovie tube camera come out without artifacts. Then again, it does help to clean your source video as much as possible before encoding.

  30. Where do you see these encoder tests twice a year? provide proof. Don't avoid the question, just ******* answer it. And yes suggesting a forum where people DEVELOP encoders isn't ridiculous. I'm 100% sure these people are more knowledgeable, whens the last time you made a encoder? You may seem smart to these people but I see through your bullshit. And when did this become a question about legality to where the opinions come from? and even then these people are probably smarter than you.




Similar Threads

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