What's a good, free MPEG2 encoder?

[-Habanero-]

So I tried mpeg-1 encoding with ffmpeg and the quality is WAY better than TMPGenc but I'm having trouble reaching a bitrate higher than 1000 no matter what I do. Here's my script, any suggestions?

ffmpeg -i "M:\TouhouAnime.avs" -pass 1 -f mpeg1video -an -passlogfile log_file -b:v 2000k -qmax 50 -qmin 1 -mbd rd -trellis 2 -cmp 2 -subcmp 2 -g 100 -bf 2 -flags mv0 "TouhouAnimeMPEG1 2000kbs.mpg"

MPEG-2 once again did slightly worse than its predecessor. :/

[El Heggunte]

^ my suggestions:

— decrease qmax
— decrease GOP length
— disable trellis

{and as a last resort only... use a high-bitrate matrix }

[-Habanero-]

I tried #2 and 3 and decresing qmax to 2 and I could only get it up to 1500 kb/s still. Then I decreased qmax to 1 and now the bitrate ballooned to 5 Mb/s. Jeez. Why can't the bitrate simply be controlled by --b? How does TMPGenc and others do it?

[-Habanero-]

Also, MPEG-1 is now triumphing over XviD at high bitrates. Seems slow settings compromise the quality with XviD as well, should I turn off trellis there also?

[pandy]

I disagree with you about what MPEG-1 was designed for, tho. Its application is diverse. From the HD 4K resolution and 100 Mb/s to the 320x240@64 kb/s designed for videoconferencing over an ISDN connection.

MPEG-1 was first modern video codec however designed in second middle of 80's and as such highly limited by technology limitation of this time.
Videoconferencing and ISDN require at least 128kbps and offers somehow limited resolution (176x120) and limited frame rate (most videoconferencing profiles was or 15 or.7.5 fps) = 352x240@30fps was offered over T1/E1 line ie over 1Mbps.

I do recall from previous discussions that some people preferred MPEG-2 at high bitrates than x264 because they said the quality is higher. But just now I've discovered otherwise. At the very maximum (highest CQ), both MPEG 1 and 2 failed to deliver perfect quality while x264 did exactly that. Seriously, don't use mpeg-2 anymore, folks. It's 2016.

A few years ago it was true, MPEG-2 offered usually higher quality than existing H.264 implementations - today this is no longer case and H.264 offer very high quality - encoding tools are at proper level of maturity.

[El Heggunte]

Oh my gods, how could I have forgotten mpeg2enc

download: https://sourceforge.net/projects/mjpeg/files/mjpegtools/2.1.0/

man page: http://linux.die.net/man/1/mpeg2enc

Have more fun

[-Habanero-]

How do you specify an input file with this thing? I only see an option for outputting.

[El Heggunte]

How do you specify an input file with this thing? I only see an option for outputting.

mpeg2enc accepts (and expects) only stdin — so, you have to feed it through avs2yuv, or avs2pipe(mod), or even ffmpeg.
Something like this:

avs2yuv input.avs -o - | mpeg2enc etc etc etc

[pandy]

^ my suggestions:
{and as a last resort only... use a high-bitrate matrix }

MPEG-1 doesn't allow for quantization matrix different than default one... (this was introduced in MPEG-2 syntax).

[El Heggunte]

^ my suggestions:
{and as a last resort only... use a high-bitrate matrix }

MPEG-1 doesn't allow for quantization matrix different than default one... (this was introduced in MPEG-2 syntax).

Then I must thank the author of TMPGenc for (apparently, at least) ignoring that rule ^_^

[racer-x]

I remember encoding a UHD Mpeg-1 video with ffmpeg a few years back and being quite surprised with the quality at the time.

[El Heggunte]

^ I agree, ffmpeg's MPEG-1 encoder improved a lot since the days of NuEnc and QuEnc...

For the curious, here goes a very-short (1min 33 sec) MPEG-1 clip @ 1136x592x29.97fps.
If I hadn't used the (infamous) KVCD matrix, then it would be bigger than 200MB and I could not upload it to MediaFire with my free account...

http://www.mediafire.com/download/clv5923jyuc1ey2/jerilynnpromo.mp4

[-Habanero-]

Well, the quality produced by mpeg2enc was horrible, mpeg2 once again looking worse than mpeg1. Any other contenders or is ffmpeg essentially the best implementation? Hell, ffmpeg beat the shit out of Xvid at high bitrates.

[El Heggunte]

Well, the quality produced by mpeg2enc was horrible,

mpeg2 once again looking worse than mpeg1. Any other contenders or is ffmpeg essentially the best implementation?

bbmpeg

Assuming that the "thing" works under Windows 7 x64 and newer... well, it's the slooooowest video encoder ever

[pandy]

Well, the quality produced by mpeg2enc was horrible, mpeg2 once again looking worse than mpeg1. Any other contenders or is ffmpeg essentially the best implementation? Hell, ffmpeg beat the shit out of Xvid at high bitrates.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1762062#post1762062

Then I must thank the author of TMPGenc for (apparently, at least) ignoring that rule ^_^

My fault, seem that MPEG-1 allow for custom quantization matrices - sorry for that - i always had impression that this part of sequence header functionality was added in 13818.

[-Habanero-]

bbmpeg

Garbage. Next!

[El Heggunte]

bbmpeg

Garbage. Next!

I'm afraid the Freeware Land has no more H.262 citizens on their list ^_^

Now, if you ever decide to test the commercial MPEG-2 encoders...
probably you'll find that even TotalCode (f.k.a. MainConcept Reference) suxxx

[vhelp]

Originally Posted by johnmeyer View Post
What bitrate are you using for encoding?
The same one as the original, 360 kb/s for 352x240. On the plus side, it still does look better than the original.

.

Well, the quality produced by mpeg2enc was horrible, mpeg2 once again looking worse than mpeg1. Any other contenders or is ffmpeg essentially the best implementation? Hell, ffmpeg beat the shit out of Xvid at high bitrates.

1. where is the SOURCE to test the encodes -- so that others can test for themselves ?
2. what are the parameter settings for each encoder you used -- mpeg1 mpeg2 ffmpeg x264 x265 etc ?

Please provide the necessary details so that all can share in your quest and believe your facts.

Otherwise, start another thread and provide a new source for everyone to test what best can be produced by any encoder, thank you.

ps: also, please upload your mpeg1 video so we can see what you are happy about.

[-Habanero-]

vhelp, this was originally an exercise to see how much a scuzzy old clip could've been improved if the encoder was willing to wait a whole day for encoding to finish back in the early 2000s. I've deleted all the test files for that one so it's too late.

Then _Al_ gave me an idea to test that Touhou anime clip with mpeg 1/2 which got away with reasonably good quality with x264/x265 at dialup bitrates. I can share that and all the accompanying data with you but first I want to know what the best mpeg-1/2 encoder is. So far, ffmpeg produced the best quality for the low bitrate scenario but it was difficult to adjust it for high bitrates.

So if you're experienced with those codecs, which I clearly am not, recommend an encoder, the very best settings you got and I'll report the results. Right now I'm still stuck with trying to find the best implementation. TMPGenc, HCenc, mpeg2enc, bbmpeg all failed, several of them profoundly.

[_Al_]

Then _Al_ gave me an idea to test that Touhou anime clip with mpeg 1/2

Not sure where it is coming from, I'd certainly use H.264 and not mpeg 1/2. X265 is still in early stage but if it works for you why not. I'd stop comparing suppose versions and just use what is the best and not elaborating why. Only after couple of months doing some tests if new x265 versions are better (for whatever you do). You test high bitrate then low bitrate , I'm never sure where you are at at the moment. I have trouble to follow you, always switching settings, heading somewhere else, like responding to vhelp for example.

Procoder used to be hell of an encoder, even at about 5000 it got very good results, but as soon I tested HcEncoder it was good enough for me. People watching DVD do not care really anyway, as long it is not messed up, they notice flickering (HD into DVD) but care less for some microscope better/worse quality. Also there was H.264 on the rise.
While using mpeg2 with extremely low bitrates perhaps you have to have special matrix for that and also matching quantizer, because what you do is an extreme setting but I had never used low bitrates, not sure who does, therefore no responses.

[El Heggunte]

.............

While using mpeg2 with extremely low bitrates perhaps you have to have special matrix for that and also matching quantizer, because what you do is an extreme setting but I had never used low bitrates, not sure who does, therefore no responses.

That's exactly what I told him, and apparently he didn't take it seriously.
High-compression matrices can make both MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 suck less at excessively-low bitrates.
Even Cinema Craft Encoder offered its own CQMs...

Very Low Bitrate:

08 16 19 22 26 27 99 99        16 17 18 19 20 21 99 99
16 16 22 24 27 29 99 99        17 18 19 20 21 22 99 99
19 22 26 27 29 34 99 99        18 19 20 21 22 23 99 99
22 22 26 27 29 34 99 99        19 20 21 22 23 24 99 99
22 26 27 29 32 35 99 99        20 21 22 23 25 26 99 99
26 27 29 32 35 40 99 99        21 22 23 24 26 27 99 99
26 27 29 34 38 46 99 99        22 23 24 26 27 28 99 99
27 29 35 38 46 56 99 99        23 24 25 27 28 30 99 99

Ultra Low Bitrate:

08 16 19 22 99 99 99 99        16 17 18 19 99 99 99 99
16 16 22 24 99 99 99 99        17 18 19 20 99 99 99 99
19 22 26 27 99 99 99 99        18 19 20 21 99 99 99 99
22 22 26 27 99 99 99 99        19 20 21 22 99 99 99 99
22 26 27 29 99 99 99 99        20 21 22 23 99 99 99 99
26 27 29 32 99 99 99 99        21 22 23 24 99 99 99 99
26 27 29 34 99 99 99 99        22 23 24 26 99 99 99 99
27 29 35 38 99 99 99 99        23 24 25 27 99 99 99 99

CG / Smooth:

08 16 20 22 24 24 24 24        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
16 16 20 22 24 24 24 24        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
20 20 22 24 28 28 28 28        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
22 22 24 24 28 28 28 28        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
24 24 24 24 32 32 32 32        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
24 24 24 24 32 32 32 32        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
28 28 28 28 32 32 32 32        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
28 28 28 28 32 32 32 32        16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

[-Habanero-]

...

Dude, your English is atrocious. "I'd stop comparing suppose versions and just use what is the best and not elaborating why" I have no idea what this sentence means.

El Heggunte, I got superb quality on low bitrates, it's the high bitrates I was having issues with controlling.

[_Al_]

Habanero , my English sucks, that's a fact. I do not build sentences to be a beauty even in my language. But anyway if you do not understand , I am not surprised at all, because right here you do what you do all the time. Not giving anything a thought, or trying to read even text that is pretty clear, just marching to other setting, encoder, looking for holy grail. I am lost to understand what you actually do. Last input of your is a example as well, others also. And you might write it in Queens English, it would not help anyway.

[-Habanero-]

Al, I just communicated to you that I didn't understand a sentence you wrote. Then instead of rephrasing you make excuses. This is useless and your time spent on composing that sentence remains wasted as a result.

I am lost to understand what you actually do

...looking for the best MPEG-2 encoder. If I tell you that I'm satisfied with FFMPEG's implementation, will you leave me alone? -.-

[VirtualDoobMon]

Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively. Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you. You won't share or tell anyone what the clip is so no one can help find a decent copy to reproduce. 2, we can't inspect the file properties on the old scuzzy one you have. You have people shooting in the dark here.

[Steve(MS)]

Habanero, it seems to me your request for the perfect mpeg2 encoder is at best unreasonable.
If you were to clearly state what you are trying to do then provide some samples, response might be more productive.
What you are asking is for parameters for you to try then you report back, no, that is no good.
It doesn't make sense to go about this way.
Let's face it, in general with your way of requesting, no-one really cares what you want in the way of an encoder.

I suppose you have tons of material you want to boil down to smallest size with no quality loss, again not a very realistic goal.
What you do is up to you but for many of us, since hard drive are relatively cheap, we just go ahead and buy a bunch to contain our contents.
Or we reduce the size with our encoder(s) of choice and get on with our lives.
Remember this, the original always has the best quality and encoding it only loses quality.
I have to scratch my head when I hear in these days people churning away their computers downsizing their collection to smaller sizes for hours without end.
Made sense years ago when GBs were at a premium...whatever people do with their equipment or time is up to them, I suppose.

No one really wants to waste their time doing someone else's job they should be doing themselves.
Find your own parameters for your clips for small, medium or large size and be done with it.
So far you have wasted not only your own time but of people who were trying to help you with this long meaningless thread.
Just a reality check...

[-Habanero-]

Steve, let's get this clear, I am doing quality tests for the sake of quality tests. I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's c0ck about MPEG-2. It is outdated and the very best configuration of it took 5 times more bitrate to achieve the same quality as x265. I never have and never will use it for any purpose other than a quality test. With me so far?

You're talking to an experienced encoder and former Blu-ray ripper/bootlegger who has been encoding with x264 since 2007. I know which codec is the best in terms of quality and how to use it. What I have limited experience in is in outdated, crappy codecs that fell out of popularity years ago.

To do a proper quality test, one must use the best known implementation of the codec otherwise the test would be biased. The public consensus on the best implementation of the H.264 standard is x264, so that part's easy. For MPEG-2 I'm not sure but I'm satisfied with FFmpeg's implementation. If you disagree, I'm interested in your input. If you wanna bitch and moan and give misguided lectures, this isn't the thread.

[Steve(MS)]

I see...I think.
Do you want your output to be dvd compliant for your client-el?
Anyway, putting that aside as it doesn't require an answer, ffmpeg if it hasn't changed in the past several years, hasn't been known to produce the best mpeg2 output.
Other mpeg2 encoders are known to produce better results which it seems have been covered in this thread.
One thing ffmpeg is known for however is speed, 'quick and dirty'.
Of course there are frontends for ffmpeg and some of them one can put command lines in.
I fooled around with Avanti years back, seems it did fairly well using higher bit rates.
The guy that created it knew how to tweak it some to get better results.

As a side discussion, whatever encodes the US broadcast (OTA) has what I would consider good quality at relatively low bit rates.
I have no idea what is used to do this, perhaps commercial quality hardware and /or software, (whatever it is).
Perhaps someone would know more about this.

One other direction brings us back to hcenc.
I think this is your best bet.
What you could do is search through the forum for parameters for it and perhaps find something that would be useful.
Maybe look over at doom while you are at it also.

Have no idea where you got your "originals" but if you got it off the web and someone who didn't know what they were doing has already butchered it, no encoder is going to like some of that stuff anyway, it will look worse than usual.
That's all I've got as I don't encode much anymore but when I did, I had clean source material and used hcenc, tmgenc (sort of default values on those 2).
I did fool around with ffmpeg but was using frontends with a few changes in command line...so I can't be much help.

I suppose when you find those magic parameters, you will report back the results? LOLoriginals

You could de-compress your video then run it through encoder to see if that makes a difference.

[pandy]

Still you didn't try x262... (but it may have weak areas as this is never finished project at early stage of development).

[-Habanero-]

x262? I didn't know such a thing existed. I presume the authors of x264 had nothing to do with it?

Steve, no I don't need it DVD-compliant. This is just testing the limits of the codec. My source for the first test was a 480p CG video already compressed with DivX at 0.200 BPP. It was the best source I could find. Back in 2002 I grabbed a copy of the same video which was 240p done with MPEG-1 that had a lower frame rate, low bitrate and the quality was garbage as you could predict. Using this higher quality source, I wanted to resize to 240p and see if watchable quality could've been retained if better parameters were used.
I've done it with FFmpeg and achieved a fairly tolerable picture.

The second test is a 720p flawless anime source resized to 480p which modern codecs can achieve good quality with dialup bitrates. Currently, I got the same quality @ 380 kb/s with mpeg-1 via ffmpeg and got great quality @ 1300 kb/s.

I've tried HCenc and used what I thought were good settings but the quality was so visibly bad compared to TMPGenc that I abandoned it quickly. So unless I missed some silver bullet that's not on by default, HCenc is definitely not in the top 3.