What is the best video encoder out there?? regaurdless of $$

[Parrappa]

can somebody tell me what the absolute very best video encoder out there is? regaurdless of the price of the software??

[Bravoxena]

If you take a look at the comparison charts provided by the fine folks at dvdrhelp, it all points to TmpgEnc, which will set you back about $50 or less.

[Conquest10]

tmpgenc is a great encoder. its free except for mpeg2 encoding. thats only free for 30 days. some people are rather impatient to wait a couple hours for tmpgenc and will tell you that cce is better. it takes only half the amount of time that tmpgenc does but the quality is not as good. cce is A LOT more expensive but i heard that there is a cheaper version now available.

[Poplar]

For MPEG1, nobody beats TMPG. However, is there anyone still encoding MPEG1?

For MPEG2, you have a lot of choices: TMPG, CCE SP, MainConcept, and Canopus Procoder. Pros and cons for each one:
TMPG: very good quality and cheap, but very slow.
MainConcept: excellent quality, relatively cheap and fast. No real drawback.
CCE: lightning fast and excellent quality. Very expensive.
Procoder: Excellent quality, auguably the best quality at Mastering Level. Excruciatingly SLOW. Not too expensive.

[The_Hermit1971]

I´m no expert so I apologize for what i´m about to say:

I disagree when people say that CCE is faster than TMPGEnc because CCE needs more passes to achieve the same results that TMPGEnc gets with less passes.

For example: when I encoded a 2 hour movie to svcd using TMPGEnc with CQ encoding mode and value of 70, it took about 7 hours and the results were great. (CQ is some type of variable bitrate encoding mode that uses just one pass)

In the other hand, when I encoded the same movie using CCE, I had to use a three pass encoding mode to achieve the same great results; but took about 12 hours to encode just because the three pass encoding. (I have to emphasize that when using one pass encoding with CCE, the results are terrible)

TMPGEnc takes 7 hours per pass with great results.

CCE takes about 4 hours per pass but needs three passes to achieve the same results.

CCE is faster than TMPGEnc "per pass" but needs more passes to achieve the same results. So at the end TMPGEnc is faster (basically because of CQ) because needs less passes to achieve the same results.

In conclusion: thank GOD for Constant Quality mode.

(Everybody is welcome to correct me if I´m wrong)

[dcsos]

If you're talking about hardware based encoding,
the board bundled with SCENERIST http://www.sonic.com/products/sdseries/sd2000/default.htm
This is the Rolls Royce of MPEG-2 Encoding for thousands of dollars
They also make two cheaper boards..the least of which is still over a thousand.

So now we're left with boards that capture well in AVI and you transcode to MPEG -2

or PRO-BOARDS that CAPTURE to MPEG-2
Here we have the suggested CANOPUS MVR1000
Could anyone comment on whether VITEC is a good option also?
as their one of thier "pro" boards is now less than $500
both of these beat out the ALL IN WONDER or PINNALCES PCTV consumer garbage..Mpeg-2 capture at the cheapest is rough!
Are those USB grabbers any good folks? we wanna know..
NOW I SEE THERE's an ADS PRODUCT That uses USB 2.0 finally-- does that allow it to grab like a pro device? Its only 200 bucks and this would be my choice to check out first if I'm on a consumer budget!

I Think looking at
WWW.VIDEOGUYS.com
would help us here

specifically
http://www.videoguys.com/mpeg2.htm

[legionpc]

CCE takes about 4 hours per pass but needs three passes to achieve the same results.

Time per pass would obviously depend on the length of the video, however for a 1 hour avi to SVCD in CCE it only takes me about 25 minutes or less per pass. TMPGEnc on the other hand, encoding the same video to SVCD with the same settings is over an hour per pass. I do my movies in 2-pass mode, and in CCE they encode at over twice realtime (for 2-pass VBR, its over 4x realtime in CBR mode ), but in TMPGEnc it encodes at only JUST faster than realtime, maybe 1.1x realtime.

Seems to me theres something wrong with your computer or settings if it takes you 4 hours per pass on a 1.7GHz CPU in CCE

[You_Are_Alive]

If I remember correctly, the Vitec Mpeg Profiler is very comparable to the Sonic SD-2000, 1000 in its functions. Another very good one is the Pinnacle DC2000, which I use. It probably compares more closely to the SD-500. The added benefit of this is that in terms of technology and video quality, the DC2000 uses the same C-Cube chip for encoding VBR and CBR. See reason below.

Following the link from above for the Sonic products, and reading in its despcriptions it says that the SD-2000 uses the Constant-Q chip for encoding but does not specify exactly which chip. And from what I know about C-cube, one of the best chips they made was the DVxpress which came in 2 flavors, DVxpress25 and DVxpress50. And low and behold, this amazing chip does exactly what the SD-X000 series of cards does with a few variations just like the Pinnacle. So with a high degree of certainty, I bet its using the same DVexpress chip. Oh, here's a partial spec sheet for the chip, note the similarity.

The native chip is capable of encoding/decoding:
1)MPEG-1
2)MPEG-2 ML@MP and ML@4:2:2P
3)DV-25 and DV-50 (the latter for the MX50)

It supports:
- Single chip MPEG and DV encoding.
- Multiple stream MPEG and DV decoding.
- Realtime special effects for editing.
-Bitstream transcoding between DV and MPEG formats
-PCI bus mastering interface
-64bit wide, 8Mbytes of buffer SDRAM (880Mbytes/sec throughput max)
-8 channels of audio input/output ports (!)
-High speed inter-processor bus to support multichip configurations of MX's.
-input dithering of a 10 bit video digital down to 8 bits with little loss of quality.
-110Mhz operation clock.

So anyway, what I'm saying is that the chip is very versatile. I don't believe that you need to spend the extra high premium for the best, when other solutions exist that cost alot less and give the same quality (like using the same chip), if all your going to do is transfer your home videos to dvd. Save your money, and use a software encoder. You probably won't even notice the difference, as alot of people here don't already. They care more about price and how easy it is to use, rather than just the highest quality possible.

One more note, the C-cube technology is now matured and probably at its end of life cycle, NOT because it's not good BUT because of newer technology developed that is less expensive to implement. And it can also encode to mpeg-2 with very good results, arguably on par if not better, then the high-end boards mentioned above. But I wouldn't change my dc2000, its quick and does everything I need it do, real-time with excellent quality.

[SaSi]

Just to broaden the scope, have you heard of the following?

Heuris MPEG Encoder
http://www.heuris.com/MPEGProducts/demo/mpp25ddemo.exe

and

Honestech MPEG Encoder.
http://www.honestech.com/

I've tried both. Can't say if they are better or worse or faster but it's interesting to try them as well.

On the comment that Tmpgenc is slower than CCE, I can say that using them both in single pass VBR at 5Mbps average, CCE easily goes faster than realtime on my PC. Tmpgenc, even with the fastest settings cannot do that. So it's slower. Not all that much though.

If I encode a 3 pass VBR with CCE (4 passes in total) the time required is 7 hours approx. Tmpgenc needs approx. 9 hours to do it in single pass VBR with highest quality setting in motion estimate. Again, it's a little (only) slower, but too slow for me.

On the other hand, Mainconcept is a hell of a lot faster and the quality is very good (if you have the right settings). So this is the one I use, although I am not the least sorry for getting Tmpgenc as well. It can be used where Mainconcept cannot (resizing, filtering, etc).

Having said all that, there is another element that defines the "Quality" of the encoder. I've seen almost every program (except CCE) generating random artifacts into the movie. Not often, but it happens. One or two frames (sometimes more) in a movie. Professional studios don't accept that. So they use CCE.

[digitalmaster]

www.mainconcept.com
Mainconcept Encoder
This is a very fast program with great results and tons of options and settings. Check it out. $149 dollars.

[digitalmaster]

CCE records faster than real time if you have a Pentium 4 2.0 and up, and the one pass CQ setting gives you excellent quaility video. TMPGEnc does not come close to CCE on a Pentium 4 when comparing speeds.

[dcsos]

Do you use CCE 2.50 or the newer builds.?
Ther's even a CCE basic for less money that came out this year

[digitalmaster]

I don't believe 2.50 is enhanced for Pentium 4. It is from August of 2000. I think 2.60 and up are. Don't quote me on that though.

[T-E-M]

If TMPGenc is so good, how come I get crappy quality when I try to convert DivX to MPG? I even choose highest motion precision.

[Doggiedaddy]

justmy2cents

Software Encoders used when doing a re-authoring or test project.
TMPGEncPlus 2.510
CCE SP2.66
CCE SP2.50
CCE Basic

And the winner is TMPGEncPlus IMHO
In quality slight edge and around the same in time on a 3 or 4 pass VBR DVD compliant output. I usually run projects on a separate workstation and all systems are in the 2+/-GHz range so I can not comment on the effects of an older processor in relation to speed on either encoder. And I am talking quality in quality out not some half baked download input expecting high quality end result.
Remember
justmy2cents

[Fozzee]

If I am right most of these programs are avi to mpg encoders is that right?
I capture high res/ high bitrate mpeg2 then encode to SVCD/VCD.
Which of the programs can have mpeg as its source?
I have only tried TMPGEnc with pretty good results most times.

Fozzee

[WeedVender]

Yesterday I did a conversion of An old DV tape i had.
It was a car crash, one of those destruction derby things.

I encoded the file on MainConcept 1.3.1, CCE Basic 2.66 ,Tmpgenc 2.10

I encoded them into DVD compliance on a CBR encode.

TmpGenc : slowest, inserted some macroblocks when crashes occured. It wasnt really noticible unless ur a quality freak.

MainConcept: Fastest, had a little noise around the cars while they were driving but no blocks.

CCE: Almost as fast (by 1 minute) as MainConcept but CCE gave me crystal clear quality. There was no noise, no blocks.

But it depends on what you are going to do. High motion scenes like the one i encoded for comparison would really test an encoder but the comparison chart on this site uses low motion scenes which TMPgenc probly has a strength in.

[Fozzee]

Yes but can you use MPG as your source in Mainconcept and CCE ??

Fozzee

[2573]

For me the best is Canopus procoder.

[DJRumpy]

And the winner is TMPGEncPlus IMHO
In quality slight edge and around the same in time on a 3 or 4 pass VBR DVD compliant output.

I find it hard to believe that TMPGenc came anywhere near to CCE in speed. Around the same time? TMPgenc has got to be one of the slowest encoders out there. Good quality yes, but it tends to easily introduce macroblocking on high motion scenes. It's also way to slooowww...

Main Concept will also easily trounce TMPgenc in regards to speed from what I hear. Typical DVD output on TMPGenc usually runs closer to a day(s), instead of an hour or two for the faster encoders. Who's fooling who?

Fozzee, I believe MainConcept accepts MPEG directly. CCE pretty much requires AVI, or frameserved, meaning it accepts anything.

[IvIark]

Yes but can you use MPG as your source in Mainconcept and CCE

You can in Mainconcept. In fact you can use a VOB file as your source in Mainconcept too!

[jnk76]

For video encoding or re-encoding Cinema Craft is by far the best quality.

It sucks for audio though....so that needs to be done elsewhere.

There are many other programs that are cheaper and many for that are free and are very good but it depends on what you are doing (type of video).

[DJRumpy]

It sucks for audio though....so that needs to be done elsewhere.

This has been debated before. I think the general consesus was that the audio in CCE was fine. This turned into a legend over time, as more and more people kept repeating it. When we actually had a forum discussion of this to see if it was a myth or not, and it turned out that everyone pretty much found the output to be satisfactory, good, or better. I tend to agree. It sounds fine. I cannot tell any difference between a BeSweet encoded MP2 and a CCE encoded MP2, using the same WAV source.

[WeedVender]

Wow you can't?
Strange, what version was used?

[DJRumpy]

2.50, 2.64, and 2.66

Think about it. This is the same encoder used by professional studios, costing well over a thousand dollars. I don't think it would produce substandard audio, or audio that was inferior in quality to a freeware program.

[bugster]

It sucks for audio though....so that needs to be done elsewhere.

This has been debated before. I think the general consesus was that the audio in CCE was fine. This turned into a legend over time, as more and more people kept repeating it. When we actually had a forum discussion of this to see if it was a myth or not, and it turned out that everyone pretty much found the output to be satisfactory, good, or better. I tend to agree. It sounds fine. I cannot tell any difference between a BeSweet encoded MP2 and a CCE encoded MP2, using the same WAV source.

and he also said:

2.50, 2.64, and 2.66

Think about it. This is the same encoder used by professional studios, costing well over a thousand dollars. I don't think it would produce substandard audio, or audio that was inferior in quality to a freeware program.

and how many professional studios produce DVD's with mp2 audio? I have never seen one.

Oh, and I am not saying CCE audio is good or bad, just asking if the 'proffesional studios use CCE' is a valid argumet with respect to its audio quality?

[DJRumpy]

MP2 is not excluded from the DVD Spec. The spec only requires PCM, or AC3 audio.

As to how many use it? I would image 'enough', since the company is still here, after charging over a thousand american for a piece of software...

[bugster]

MP2 is not excluded from the DVD Spec. The spec only requires PCM, or AC3 audio.

I never said it was. I was also not questioning the quality of CCE as a video encoder or how many proffessional publishing houses use it as such. I was just wondering if these same proffessional publishing houses also actually use the audio capabilities of CCE to encode mp2 audio. I ask because although it is valid for DVD, (and I do most of my own DVD encoding with mp2 audio), I have yet to find a commercial DVD that has mp2 audio. It is usually PCM or Ac3.

Having said all that, my own collection of commercial DVd's is less than a hundred so I suppose it is a fairly small sample to base any theory on!

[jnk76]

I take back my comments on the CCE audio issue. I did not want to start a debate and should keep my opinions to myself since it was off topic.
The person wanted to know the best encoder.....CCE is the best out there that I know off for video.

[BJ_M]

Optibase has some of the nicest encoders around (i have a optibase D1) , their entry level card is $1700 and go up to about $20,000 per card for DVD quality , they have higher end products as well ..

panasonic makes a hardware encoder/capture card/system that is really excellent quality also from what i've heard ..

There are some various transcoder and encoder systems for DVD and HD quality that run easly to $75,000 per system (and more) ..