is FFmpegx Quality the Same as TMPGEnc?

[Razorblade2000]

So can mpeg2enc or ffmpeg give me the same quality as TMPGEnc? (480x480 MPEG2)

I guess I'll use ffmpeg from now on for "burn on RW, watch and delete stuff" as it really seems to be fast as hell!

[kwag]

I'm currently trying it out on my old PowerPC 400Mhz G4 (OC'ed to 450Mhz)
Running Mac OS X Server 10.2.6

-kwag

[incredible]

I encoded all my mpeg jobs until last year on my G4 MAC.

At that time FFmpegX was only able to encode at CBR and Qvbr (well as I can remember ).
So it had fewer options as in TMPGEnc... but the Quality in that case was good.

I love also the way of encoding with mpeg2enc using GUIs which allow directly to set the parameters in a seperate window like MMTools "-x -x -x -x etc."

But for me FFmpegX was the best designed application which uses the mpeg2enc when choosing the way without special modifyings in the parameter lines.

Good Job Major4!

[kwag]

On my preliminary tests using ffmpegX and ffmpeg (not mpeg2enc), quality is looking better than TMPEG ( more tests to come! )
The motion estimation is SUPERB
I can't get that with mpeg2enc

@major,
Are you getting the same results too, comparing ffmpeg and mpeg2enc

More tests to come, with samples, hopefully later today.
Also, encoding speed (ffmpeg) just blows TMPEG away

-kwag

[Razorblade2000]

so it's faster and looks better

Guess I'll have to make a new clean Linux install...

btw: who moved it into the ffmpegX forum... I have no mac... so it would be better in the ffmepg forum

[incredible]

Kwag, ... does FFmpegX work now faster, ... I mean when using a G4 400?

Last Year I needed about 10 hours to encode a 120min Movie at 480x576 mpeg2 using FFmpegX on a G4 400 in my office


I think now the REAL Mac Hype begins finally also in the mpeg video encoding sector ... with this new G5 speed monsters

[Razorblade2000]

uhhhm... are ffmpeg and ffmpegX based on the same source?
ffmpegx has afaik a nice gui...
ffmpeg hasn't (at least I havent seen one yet)

[major4]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag

@major,
Are you getting the same results too, comparing ffmpeg and mpeg2enc

Yes, ffmpeg has better image quality, also it's incredibly fast. The only current problem of ffmpeg with mpeg-2 encoding (and to some extent with mpeg-1 too) is that the muxer doesn't create compliant streams and there is no SVCD support. But it is of course the most promising project around.

[kwag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by major4

Yes, ffmpeg has better image quality, also it's incredibly fast.

It sure is

Quote:

The only current problem of ffmpeg with mpeg-2 encoding (and to some extent with mpeg-1 too) is that the muxer doesn't create compliant streams and there is no SVCD support. But it is of course the most promising project around.

In the mean time, encode with parameter -an (Disable audio), or bring the encoded MPEG file to Windows, and demux with TMPEG. Then remux with BBMpeg or Mplex.
See my first test here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6032

-kwag

[japie]

You can also multiplex on os-X or *nix when you have the transcode package installed.
The commandline utility "tcmplex" is actualy the bbmpeg multiplexer...