Best MPEG2 Encoder for DVD

[nostalgia]

in 2019 what software can produce the best results for MPEG2 for DVD?

Thanks!

[Adrian Hepker]

in 2019 what software can produce the best results for MPEG2 for DVD?

Thanks!

DVD Studio Pro 4 with compressor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[videobruger]

HC Encoder

[nostalgia]

in 2019 what software can produce the best results for MPEG2 for DVD?

Thanks!

DVD Studio Pro 4 with compressor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PC only please. I don't have a MAC.

[videobruger]

Use "Computor Details" in your "Profile"

[lordsmurf]

MainConcept TotalCode, payware, about $500 (base+broadcast). No contest.
For freeware, Avidemux 2.5.x

[davexnet]

Problem with Avidemux is that you have to calculate and manually add the top and bottom borders, and then resize to 720x480 or 720x576 PAL.
Still probably best to use AVStoDVD, it does all that for you,and sets the best bitrate

[El Heggunte]

MainConcept TotalCode, payware, about $500 (base+broadcast). No contest.

For freeware, Avidemux 2.5.x

Only for Linux and only as a last resort, IMHO.
The old mpeg2enc should be worth a try. x262 became much better than it was some years ago.

[manono]

HC Enc.

[lordsmurf]

Only for Linux and only as a last resort, IMHO.

Part of it is because decent GUI, not buggy.
MPEG encoding freeware has always been buggy.

[LigH.de]

3rd vote for HC

[amaipaipai]

MainConcept TotalCode, payware, about $500 (base+broadcast). No contest.

TRUE!

I still have my paid version of MainConcept MPEG-2 codec that I use back in the late 90's along with TMPGEnc, quality wise, MainConcept is the best, hands down.

[sophisticles]

I still have my paid version of MainConcept MPEG-2 codec that I use back in the late 90's along with TMPGEnc, quality wise, MainConcept is the best, hands down.

In many ways, MC's software was the best, hands down, in multiple categories, including H264 and H265.

There's a reason MC was bought by DivX for about 28 million bucks and then Sonic bought DivX for over 11 times that a few years later.

The proof is in the pudding, Main Concept's software has generated hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue in the form of sales, licensing fees, acquisitions, etc, meanwhile the open source alternatives can barely give their crap away, there are Linux distros that do not ship with support out of the box for them because of "fears" related to supposed "patent" issues and frankly the encodes are barely watchable.

[_Al_]

ProCoder from Canopus

[Kerry56]

Used to use ProCoder, and have tried TMPGenc and Mainconcept at various times. I switched to HC years ago and have never had issues. For DVD resolutions, it works just fine. Rarely make DVD's these days however.

AviDemux would be my last choice among the free ones.

[_Al_]

Try t test it again then , 4000 average for a long footage for example. Back then, you need to have 1hour30min on DVD or more.

To ask whats best is not a smart question I know, but that scenario low bitrate, longer footage, one layer DVD with ProCoder got amazing results.
I have not used Pro Mainconcept really good, could not make decisive resolution. Just comparing that with HCEncoder . That one is amazing tool and free, that makes it best in real world I guess. Myself I started used HcEncoder at a point and did not look back, but DVD lengths got much shorter as well. HcEncoder could be used in batch files, etc, using it in "DV avi helper" for example.

[dannyboy48888]

in the free realm of things HC and avisynth. Always got better results than with consumer pay encoders such as tmpeg. I'm sure "pro" encoders will blow it out of the water but for many moons the result has been so good I've never looked at my video and went "it needs to look better". Anther upside is if you ever do dabble in linux the entire chain runs fine under wine. You can use avsPmod to see what your script looks like also.

[abolibibelot]

The proof is in the pudding, Main Concept's software has generated hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue in the form of sales, licensing fees, acquisitions, etc, meanwhile the open source alternatives can barely give their crap away, there are Linux distros that do not ship with support out of the box for them because of "fears" related to supposed "patent" issues and frankly the encodes are barely watchable.

Well, if sales had a direct relation with quality... Justin Gaga, Lady Bieber, Miley Minaj and Nicki Cyrus would be the epitome of transcendance in the music department...
I have read repeatedly that x264 was a significantly better implementation of the H.264 standard than most commercial H.264 encoders (providing a better bitrate to perceived quality ratio), especially those included in even pro-level non-linear editors (which are usually provided by MainConcept – although it may not be the full-fledged version of MC's flagship standalone encoder or somethin', if someone knows something please chime in), to the point where many serious users go out of their way to either frameserve from their NLE software to x264, if possible and practical, or failing that, export their edited videos as a lossless intermediate in order to do the final encoding with x264.
For MPEG, I have, likewise, read repeatedly that HC Encoder was superior to most MPEG provided with commercial softwares, but in my (limited) experience I haven't been able to obtain conclusive proofs of such statements, or at the very least it wasn't worth the hassle.

[lordsmurf]

ProCoder from Canopus

It got to the point where it was impossible to install, and was slow when it did. And it was always softer than MainConcept anyway, and actually got worse with each new version.

I have read repeatedly that x264 was a significantly better implementation of the H.264 standard than most commercial H.264 encoders (providing a better bitrate to perceived quality ratio), especially those included in even pro-level non-linear editors (which are usually provided by MainConcept – although it may not be the full-fledged version of MC's flagship standalone encoder or somethin', if someone knows something please chime in), to the point where many serious users go out of their way to either frameserve from their NLE software to x264, if possible and practical, or failing that, export their edited videos as a lossless intermediate in order to do the final encoding with x264.

That's not really true at all.

There are a lot of x264 fanboys out there, but only because it's free.

While it is true that x264 does give some more control over micro-settings, you run into an issue where you start to go out of compliance. You can do whatever you want as a home user, sharing files, online, etc, but you need to comply with specs for hardware players and optical media. You can't just do whatever you want when encoding professionally.

People rarely export NLE to x264, and it really wasn't even possible until recent times. The author seems to have done well, I'm glad it exists, but it's not a game changer of any kind. Just another freeware tool that will have a likely-small cult following. NLE owners seeking freeware encoders isn't a big audience.

MainConcept has the SDK (software developer kit) versions including "free" (part of pricing) with NLEs like Premiere and Vegas. While quite decent, the full version has more options, noting it has both base and pro version as well.

For MPEG, I have, likewise, read repeatedly that HC Encoder was superior to most MPEG provided with commercial softwares, but in my (limited) experience I haven't been able to obtain conclusive proofs of such statements, or at the very least it wasn't worth the hassle.

The idea that HC Encoder is superior to MainConcept, CinemaCraft, and some others, is laughable.

No.

[sophisticles]

I have read repeatedly that x264 was a significantly better implementation of the H.264 standard than most commercial H.264 encoders (providing a better bitrate to perceived quality ratio), especially those included in even pro-level non-linear editors (which are usually provided by MainConcept – although it may not be the full-fledged version of MC's flagship standalone encoder or somethin', if someone knows something please chime in), to the point where many serious users go out of their way to either frameserve from their NLE software to x264, if possible and practical, or failing that, export their edited videos as a lossless intermediate in order to do the final encoding with x264.
For MPEG, I have, likewise, read repeatedly that HC Encoder was superior to most MPEG provided with commercial softwares, but in my (limited) experience I haven't been able to obtain conclusive proofs of such statements, or at the very least it wasn't worth the hassle.

I have been reading these claims myself for years and I will ask you this, if these open source solutions really are that superior to the costly commercial offerings, don't you think that they would simply copy the code, or least the algorithms the open source variants use and improve the commercial offerings to the point where they were equal?

It doesn't make any sense, the claim is that x264/x265 are so much better than the closed source alternatives that cost big money, if this is the case then why doesn't Main Concept dive into the x264/x265 code base, copy the algorithms and make there's just as good?

[poisondeathray]

I have been reading these claims myself for years and I will ask you this, if these open source solutions really are that superior to the costly commercial offerings, don't you think that they would simply copy the code, or least the algorithms the open source variants use and improve the commercial offerings to the point where they were equal?

It doesn't make any sense, the claim is that x264/x265 are so much better than the closed source alternatives that cost big money, if this is the case then why doesn't Main Concept dive into the x264/x265 code base, copy the algorithms and make there's just as good?

GNU GPL licensing means you'd have to release yours as well if GPLed parts are used, such as x264/x265 code

But the commerical x264 license is LGPL - which means you don't have to release code for your parts. That's how x264 is able to be used in commercial applications by Telestream, TMGEnc , Sorensen, etc... If "mainconcept" was "sufficient" , they wouldn't have to pay for the additional x264 license or even offer it. It s only because it was considered best in class that they were "forced" to offer it

You can try to copy stuff illegally, but risk running into patent and legal issues. Companies tend to have risk management in their strategic decisions and avoid that stuff



But for MPEG2, Mainconcept and Cinemacraft are better than HCEnc . For AVC , x264 >> Mainconcept by a longshot. It's not even remotely in the same ballpark in any test objective or subjective

[zizouillette]

- Cinema Craft Encoder basic 2.70.01 driven by DVD2SVCD the best for me and so quick, very cheap
- CANOPUS PRO CODER driven by DVD2SVCD very good results but slower than CCE
- TMPGenc 2.5 driven by DVD2SVCD very very good results but dramaticaly slooooooow
- TotalCode Studio 3.0.1
- Sorenson Squeeze
- And.......DVD2one 2.41

[sophisticles]

GNU GPL licensing means you'd have to release yours as well if GPLed parts are used, such as x264/x265 code

But the commerical x264 license is LGPL - which means you don't have to release code for your parts. That's how x264 is able to be used in commercial applications by Telestream, TMGEnc , Sorensen, etc... If "mainconcept" was "sufficient" , they wouldn't have to pay for the additional x264 license or even offer it. It s only because it was considered best in class that they were "forced" to offer it

You can try to copy stuff illegally, but risk running into patent and legal issues. Companies tend to have risk management in their strategic decisions and avoid that stuff

I'm well aware of the GPL, I have been a Linux user for years. I also know that it's very easy to copy an algorithm, if not the complete code and obfuscate it in C to the point it's impossible to prove the origins.

As for the examples you quoted, those solutions only chose to license x264 because it was cheaper than the licensing costs associated with the full Main Concept SDK and because of all the hype that the x264 developers and users have spent years promoting, so that now for many people if it can't output to x264 it's seen as a negative.

The best AVC encode I ever did was using Main Concept's software from within the old Magix software, before they bought out Vegas.

Regardless, I will concede that in the Linux and BSD world, x264 is the best software based option available, primarily because it's the only viable software option available.

[poisondeathray]

I'm well aware of the GPL, I have been a Linux user for years. I also know that it's very easy to copy an algorithm, if not the complete code and obfuscate it in C to the point it's impossible to prove the origins.

If you run a business, there are certain risks that you just cannot take

As for the examples you quoted, those solutions only chose to license x264 because it was cheaper than the licensing costs associated with the full Main Concept SDK and because of all the hype that the x264 developers and users have spent years promoting, so that now for many people if it can't output to x264 it's seen as a negative.

They chose it for their professional solutions because it's best in class encoder (or at least "was" for many years). Telestream markets it as the industry leading encoder. And the scientific proof and zillions of tests back it up.

The best AVC encode I ever did was using Main Concept's software from within the old Magix software, before they bought out Vegas.

And if you did some proper comparisons head to head, you would revise that statement . Anecdotal evidence = not very useful . I might pay more attention if it was some regular codec tester that publishes tests weekly, but they'd still have to produce reproducible results. ie. Show me the proof

Often casual users will just use a codec, without even bothering to do tests, learning how to use it properly, or even look at the evidence and proof .

Mainconcept AVC usually isn't even up for consideration . It's closer to the middle of the pack. The writing was on the wall many years ago. Other encoders like Ateme AVC are in the running, perhaps even better than x264 now. x264 was considered "best in class" for AVC for many years. And even today it's still used in comparisons against next gen HEVC, VP9, AV1, VVC encoders as a known benchmark.

To ignore the mountains of scientific evidence of these facts and observational data is simply delusional . Like a "flat earther" or "anti-vaxxer" - it's a fixed false belief. They are the "fanboys" by definition. If someone could provide at least some evidence, at least one outlier, a single test where a Mainconcept AVC produces better results then maybe you can even start a discussion - but for MC AVC there is not even one single case that shows this (!). If you were a marketing genius wouldn't you claim MC is the "best" or superior? They don't because its absolutely absurd, and everyone knows it. And every test shows it. At least with encoders that are "close" , on some test maybe one is better, but on another the positions flip flop on some sections . Maybe some types of genres or sources one does better. Not so with MC AVC; it is worse. Everytime. (At least it's better than Apple AVC, so that's something - it's not dead last)

x264 8bit has some well known quality issues, such as banding, issues with fades. It's just that Mainconcept AVC has the same issues, but more severe, and additional issues, such as detail loss and blurring, problems with shadows. You can tune x264 to make it look as bad as Mainconcept AVC (use very fast settings, disable a bunch of things), but you can't make MC AVC come close to the level of x264 (using proper settings) at a given bitrate

In the end , sure you can use higher bitrate to solve some MC problems, but the point of lossy compression is to reduce the filesize and keep some level of quality



But back on topic - it almost completely flip flops with the MC MPEG2 encoder (in the context of DVD).

[sophisticles]

They chose it for their professional solutions because it's best in class encoder (or at least "was" for many years). Telestream markets it as the industry leading encoder. And the scientific proof and zillions of tests back it up.

And if you did some proper comparisons head to head, you would revise that statement . Anecdotal evidence = not very useful . I might pay more attention if it was some regular codec tester that publishes tests weekly, but they'd still have to produce reproducible results. ie. Show me the proof

To ignore the mountains of scientific evidence of these facts and observational data is simply delusional.

Thanks, I needed a laugh. Have you noticed that none of those "professional solutions" include anything actually used by professionals, such as Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro X, Magix Vegas, Davinci Resolve or Edius.

Also you utter the words "scientific proof" and "scientific evidence", offer none, in fact I doubt you know the definition of "scientific" and then say "anecdotal evidence = not very useful", which is really all you have.

Listen, if you want to sip from the x264 Kool Aid, I support your right to do so.

But you have really come off as a fan boy, someone who blindly follows a cult without questioning the tenets they are being taught.

I don't know what's a bigger joke, x264 or all the silly little followers that spew nonsense about it's supposed quality.

[poisondeathray]

Thanks, I needed a laugh. Have you noticed that none of those "professional solutions" include anything actually used by professionals, such as Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro X, Magix Vegas, Davinci Resolve or Edius.

Those are typically used for editing. Notice that those are editors.

Maybe wedding videographers use them for final production. Hint: Real mass production and final distribution encoding for outlets such as Web delivery, BD, TV, Broadcast isn't done in the editing program

Also you utter the words "scientific proof" and "scientific evidence", offer none, in fact I doubt you know the definition of "scientific" and then say "anecdotal evidence = not very useful", which is really all you have.

Hilarious. Google. Look around at all the tests . x264 is included in almost everyone of them. I've posted comparisons before. Everyone that has done a comparison in the last 10 years usually has x264 in it. Even the flawed MSUs tests have x264 . You obviously know this because you've posted about it before

x264 it's strengths, and its weaknesses are backed up by a mountain of proof and evidence. All you have are unsubstantiated claims and a grudge. You go out of your way to say negative things or to criticize something about the developers or decisions they made. Just look at your post history, it's very biased.

Listen, if you want to sip from the x264 Kool Aid, I support your right to do so.

But you have really come off as a fan boy, someone who blindly follows a cult without questioning the tenets they are being taught.

I don't know what's a bigger joke, x264 or all the silly little followers that spew nonsense about it's supposed quality.

People with anti x264 delusional biases are the real joke. You have had this ever since you got put in place by the developers several times. It's silly and hilarious and sad at the same time .

x264 isn't perfect. It has a bunch of known issues. I follow what the results and tests say. And if something is bad, I'll say it's bad. I absolutely roasted x264 posts pre AQ . It was a blurry mess like rmvb. I accept the truth because that's what the results showed

[dannyboy48888]

As nice as AVC academics are we went waaay past the OP's sole first question:

in 2019 what software can produce the best results for MPEG2 for DVD?

Thanks!

[palaceplace]

They chose it for their professional solutions because it's best in class encoder (or at least "was" for many years). Telestream markets it as the industry leading encoder. And the scientific proof and zillions of tests back it up.

And if you did some proper comparisons head to head, you would revise that statement . Anecdotal evidence = not very useful . I might pay more attention if it was some regular codec tester that publishes tests weekly, but they'd still have to produce reproducible results. ie. Show me the proof

To ignore the mountains of scientific evidence of these facts and observational data is simply delusional.

Thanks, I needed a laugh. Have you noticed that none of those "professional solutions" include anything actually used by professionals, such as Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro X, Magix Vegas, Davinci Resolve or Edius.

Also you utter the words "scientific proof" and "scientific evidence", offer none, in fact I doubt you know the definition of "scientific" and then say "anecdotal evidence = not very useful", which is really all you have.

Listen, if you want to sip from the x264 Kool Aid, I support your right to do so.

But you have really come off as a fan boy, someone who blindly follows a cult without questioning the tenets they are being taught.

I don't know what's a bigger joke, x264 or all the silly little followers that spew nonsense about it's supposed quality.

my man, if you NEED scientific proof as well and the visual is not enough, what the hell are you doing providing advice about conversion to people if you can't see! Mainconcept is trash! I'm glad you paid $10,000 just to find out you were blind, thank you for the laugh!!! lmao

[sophisticles]

Those are typically used for editing. Notice that those are editors.

Maybe wedding videographers use them for final production. Hint: Real mass production and final distribution encoding for outlets such as Web delivery, BD, TV, Broadcast isn't done in the editing program

I take it you don't remember once stating that you couldn't understand why NLE didn't include output to delivery formats (they do by the way), my pointing out that they were Non Linear Editors not Non Linear Encoders and you stating that while you understood that it would still be nice if they offered output to x264/x265. I take it you don't remember that exchange. Now you have flip flopped,

Hilarious. Google. Look around at all the tests . x264 is included in almost everyone of them. I've posted comparisons before. Everyone that has done a comparison in the last 10 years usually has x264 in it. Even the flawed MSUs tests have x264 . You obviously know this because you've posted about it before

I don't see how or why MSU's tests are "flawed" expect that they have at times shown x264 to NOT be the best encoder and this is the type of thing I'm talking about. MSU is held up as an authority when x264 wins outright but if it comes in second or third or even tied for first then people like you start tearing the testing apart, claiming improper testing methodology, bias or bribe, as was the case when Sky Lake's QS beat out x264 that one year.

It's true that I include x264 in my test as a reference point and I will concede that due to it being legally free and available for Linux and flexible with regards to output resolutions and frame rate I use it and x265 for testing and archiving (with high enough bit rate) but I still believe it's highly over-rated.

x264 it's strengths, and its weaknesses are backed up by a mountain of proof and evidence. All you have are unsubstantiated claims and a grudge. You go out of your way to say negative things or to criticize something about the developers or decisions they made. Just look at your post history, it's very biased.

I do not have a grudge against anyone, I don't know any of the developers personally, I hate that one of them spewed a bunch of BS in promoting his crap and I hate that people accepted it as gospel without ever questioning whether his/her/it's claims made any sense and I hate the fact that people like you, that readily admit that both x264 and x265 have serious shortcomings, continue insisting that it's the best encoder available without having the intellectual honesty to admit that they don't really have any experience with any other encoder.

Have you done extensive testing with AMD's VCE encoder? I have.

Have you done extensive testing with Quick Sync? I have.

Have you don't extensive testing with NVENC. I have.

Have you done extensive testing with Intel's SVT? I have.

I don't talk about Coffee Lake's QS, Navi's VCE or Turing's NVENC because I never used them, but you seem to have no problems dismissing them. You also have no problem dismissing Apple's Encoder, Main Concept's Encoder, Sony's Encoder, and so on without having actually done any testing of them yourself, all you know is that someone on an internet board claims they are worse than x264.

I know you don't have a 4k or 5k monitor, but you don't have a problem claiming x264 is the best for those resolutions.

But in all fairness, you're not the only one and this isn't the only subject that people do this with. you have guys that will claims this car sucks or that car is unreliable or make some other similar statement, when they have never owned or driven the car they are talking about nor are they a certified mechanic or engineer, but because someone, somewhere, sometime, claimed that car x breaks down a lot, they have taken it as gospel.

Seriously, grow up, start thinking for yourself, think critically, run your own tests, then come talk to me.

[poisondeathray]

Perhaps this discussion can be split off

Those are typically used for editing. Notice that those are editors.

Maybe wedding videographers use them for final production. Hint: Real mass production and final distribution encoding for outlets such as Web delivery, BD, TV, Broadcast isn't done in the editing program

I take it you don't remember once stating that you couldn't understand why NLE didn't include output to delivery formats (they do by the way), my pointing out that they were Non Linear Editors not Non Linear Encoders and you stating that while you understood that it would still be nice if they offered output to x264/x265. I take it you don't remember that exchange. Now you have flip flopped,

Not at all; You're mixing up 2 different contexts. Large scale commercial level such as broadcast, VOD, Internt. The other small such a a local event or wedding videographer, or personal usage such as a youtuber .

For example, Netflix or Amazon don't deliver an AVC or VP9 version hot from the editor. It's a higher quality mastering format that multiple versions are encoded from - different resolutions and qualities for different targets

I don't see how or why MSU's tests are "flawed" expect that they have at times shown x264 to NOT be the best encoder and this is the type of thing I'm talking about. MSU is held up as an authority when x264 wins outright but if it comes in second or third or even tied for first then people like you start tearing the testing apart, claiming improper testing methodology, bias or bribe, as was the case when Sky Lake's QS beat out x264 that one year.

If you look at the posts back then, people that test codecs disregarded the results, or put a low weight on them even when x264 "won" because SSIM and PSNR had lower correlation rates with actual perception. Now they include more subjective assessment, so it's a bit better . It's a data point, but you need to look at other tests as well

I do not have a grudge against anyone, I don't know any of the developers personally, I hate that one of them spewed a bunch of BS in promoting his crap and I hate that people accepted it as gospel without ever questioning whether his/her/it's claims made any sense and I hate the fact that people like you, that readily admit that both x264 and x265 have serious shortcomings, continue insisting that it's the best encoder available without having the intellectual honesty to admit that they don't really have any experience with any other encoder.

How so? I lots of experience with x264 (less so with with x265) , dating back many years. Just check some old comparison tests posted.

I haven't used AMD, but Quick Sync (not coffee lake or newer), NVenc (not turing), SVT (just recently, not a lot of testing)

Testers are very cynical by nature. I test everything that is claimed. I look for problems

I don't talk about Coffee Lake's QS, Navi's VCE or Turing's NVENC because I never used them, but you seem to have no problems dismissing them.

I say exactly what I see about the user posted results . If they produce blurry results, I say they produce blurry results. If they produce clean results, I say clean results. And I'm explicitly clear in saying that I 'm referring to user posted tests, not my encode . I would like to test Turning more because the claims don't add up to what I see.

You also have no problem dismissing Apple's Encoder, Main Concept's Encoder, Sony's Encoder, and so on without having actually done any testing of them yourself, all you know is that someone on an internet board claims they are worse than x264.

Wrong again . I have tested those and posted those results

I know you don't have a 4k or 5k monitor, but you don't have a problem claiming x264 is the best for those resolutions.

Not for my home PC, and I have not made any claims like that. AVC (this includes x264) is just not as good for UHD/4K . HEVC has a huge advantage there because of the large CTU availability

Seriously, grow up, start thinking for yourself, think critically, run your own tests, then come talk to me.

You're talking to the wrong guy. I've literally done 1000's of tests still archived on some HDDs . Go look at some old posts here and on other forms. I lost about 1/2 of them from a HDD crash, but I can reproduce the results. I still have Mainconcept, Sony, Apple encoders etc... If you want me to whip some new ones up or post old ones, just say the word



Get over your silly grudge and actually use your eyes, look at the results .