Quantcast MainConcept MPEG Encoder 1.4.1 is Out - Page 2 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #21  
12-07-2003, 09:57 PM
ak47 ak47 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 168
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
That's double encoding.
No I mean use the same soure(like directly from the vob) to encode two differnt files, one with MCE and one with Tmpegenc. Not encoding to MCE then Tmpegenc, but seprate.
__________________
Later ak
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #22  
12-08-2003, 06:39 AM
GFR GFR is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
AK47 means, two separate encodes with the same size to do a fair comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
12-08-2003, 07:08 AM
Markymoo Markymoo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
12-08-2003, 07:18 AM
Markymoo Markymoo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes, I know what you mean can't do accurate file prediction because you can only do integer and not decimal. MCE dosent take long time to encode you can do 2x 3x in the same time it take tmpgenc to do 1 encode. I can get filesize right doing this and still beat tmpgenc. I don't need such accurate file prediction as i do it to dvd and not cd.

When i try to save a kvcd profile in the newest MCE 1.4.01 it crashes only half creating the kvcd.mef so i recreate the kvcd.mef fully and reload MCE and i have my new profile.

I have also found with this new alpha version i can load my avs scripts fine without having to disable idshow.dll by renaming it.

I now use the Mode 1 in rate control mode instead of fast and no problem now.

MCE is slowly getting better all the time. If you post your suggestions/ problems in the MainConcept forum they will take notice.

FFMpeg which applications use FFMpeg. I know it started out under linux.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
12-08-2003, 07:37 AM
digitall.doc digitall.doc is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Valencia (España)
Posts: 741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry if I ask before testing it, I just ask in case you made the test...
There are several parameters to be adjusted: search range, search method, noise sensitivity, motion seach mode,... Did you notice if changing these values, we get different sized files?. This could be a way to adjust the file size, making use of a range of values for this parameters, that gives us good quality and allow to change the final file size.
... don't be cruel, it was just an idea, I still didn't test.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
12-08-2003, 07:48 AM
Markymoo Markymoo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The parameters you suggested wont make much difference the main parameters that affect filesize are Average bitrate,CQ, and IFrames and also the bitrate for sound. The bigger the I Frames the smaller the filesize because of more compression but too many will NOT make it play right on ALL dvd players. It's fine if you play it on your own dvd player and test it for that but dont expect it to work the same on others.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
12-08-2003, 08:34 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Friends ... its not only that MCE only supports integer values (CCE does this too) ... its the range ... and the range provided by MCE is not enough to get a acurate final size output even on DVD-R encodings!
That means for example ... if you end up with an 3,3 Gig m2v and 3,9 would be wanted ... this means a big loss in quality so what you will receive in better speed on the other hand you have to substract to the quality!
Ok ... you could choose a bigger Q Value in MCE of its short Q range, even it would override your wanted filesize and afterwards doing a transforming on that. But thats not sexy I think But that's how Q mode could work to obtain an accurate end file size in comparison to quality. But MCEs Quality and afterwards transforming ... oh oh

But .... I also did a lot of comparisons ... MCE on low bitrate encodings like KVCD OneCD Encodings ... and the result doesent match to my opinion about quality which could be received at OneCD Encodings, but we also discussed a lot in here about this subject.

If encoding to DVD-R (for example 2 Movies on 1 DVD-R and therefore a higher AVG Bitrate) in my opinion I would choose CCE if you want more speed. Because it maybe also only accepts integer Q values but the range is much more larger than the range of MCE ... so I everytime end up with a accurate wanted end file size done by a fast manual prediction.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
12-08-2003, 10:24 AM
ak47 ak47 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 168
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
its not only that MCE only supports integer values (CCE does this too) ... its the range ... and the range provided by MCE is not enough to get a acurate final size output even on DVD-R encodings!
I agree with you thats why I said this
Quote:
But you can make a video with MCE with a CQ of 3 then use Tmpegenc to predict and encode the same file size. But that kinda of defeats the purpose of encoding since you can only make a 600mb or a 820mb file with MCE, compared to a 800mb right on file with Tmpegenc. MCE will produce the better Mpeg-2 file with CQ, but the fact is you will never get the size you want to make it causing worse quilty.
The fact is MCE is better in quilty with mpeg-2 in CQ mode, but it will never work out since there isn't a wide enough range of CQ numbers. It is great speed so it would be easier to predict if you use the same method, but its pointless since you can't make the quilty you want.
__________________
Later ak
Reply With Quote
  #29  
12-08-2003, 11:35 AM
digitall.doc digitall.doc is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Valencia (España)
Posts: 741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just another silly question , that I didn't test, but tell me what you think (or your experience) :
let's think I encode at CQ 3 and get a 700 MB file. Maybe if I raise to CQ 2, it will grow too much, isn't it?. But, what about if I now raise the average bitrate, or the maximum bitrate, or if I slightly change the resolution (704x576 to 720x576 for instance)? I'll get a bigger file size, better quality, won't I?.
I guess that this way it's difficult to fine adjust the final size, it just an idea... in case it really worth it MCE for encoding MPEG2. If not, with better stay in TMPGEnc for MPEG2 also. What do you think, friends?.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
12-08-2003, 11:54 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Well that is and will be a philosphy ....

I went 3 days non-stop into the deep of this MCE ... also testing its mpeg2 capturing capabilities too.
Refering to a frameserved mpeg2 encoding: MCE IMHO is still not very well developed (That's only my point of view) ... I compared mpeg2 encodings ABOVE AVG Bitrates of 2000kbit and there was not a better result like CCE provides (or TmpgEnc), maybe the same ... so I stuck with TmpgEnc for encodings done at mpeg1 and CCE for encodings done at mpeg2 above avg 2000kbit. ZigZag scanning mode of MCE is almost the same as CCE BUT the alternate scan mode is still not very well developed. There's only one thing I do like at MCE in comparison to CCE ... the better individual GOP Settings! And here I'm talking about encodings at 704(720)x480(576) mpeg2 but in case of DVD anyhow I won't get out of a GOP structure based on IBBPBBPBBPBBPBB (PAL). But as I said ... these are only my experiences and thats where my opinion bases on.
So everybody will do his own experiences.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
12-08-2003, 12:09 PM
digitall.doc digitall.doc is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Valencia (España)
Posts: 741
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanx incredible:
for people like me, that are going to start testing with MCE, and have no experiences at all, your experience is a good departure point.
I'll stay with TMPGEnc in MPEG1. And will try MCE for MPEG2 (average bitrate above 2000), and I'll have to download and test CCE.
... to begin with
Reply With Quote
  #32  
12-11-2003, 04:44 AM
ronnylov ronnylov is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Why is everybody trying to encode in CQ mode instead of 2-pass VBR? Just set min, max and average bitrate and do a 2-pass encoding and you'll get the filesize you want according to the average bitrate.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
12-11-2003, 04:53 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Sorry Ronnylove,

u just got in here and didn't read the history of testing and developing in here.

The 2pass Bitrate Allocation of TmpgEnc and MCE according to low Bitrates is very bad! AND TAKES MUCH MORE TIME!

And thats the point why I throwed MCE away (sorry) cause it gots a too small range to set the right CQ for a correct end file size. Not mention the Quality at low bitrates.

Read the MCE Threads in here, there's explained everything.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
12-11-2003, 08:39 AM
ronnylov ronnylov is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I can't find any good thread comparing the quality of Mainconcept 2-pass encoding to CQ encoding. Most threads are about TMPGEnc. I don't care if it's slower if the quality is better (which I'm not sure of yet).

Are there any SSIM quality comparisons of MCE CQ vs 2-pass? With the SSIM avisynth plugin you can compare the quality to the original uncompressed . SSIM seems rathor good as video quality measuring tool:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61128
Reply With Quote
  #35  
12-11-2003, 09:25 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnylov
SSIM seems rathor good as video quality measuring tool:
You can use vertical stacking with an avisynth script, and make a visual comparison, which is more realistic.
Something like this:

Code:
clip1 = avisource("k:\tmpeg.avi") 
clip1 = clip1.Crop(0, 112, 704, 256) 
clip1 = clip1.Subtitle("TMPEG") 

clip2 = avisource("k:\cce.avi") 
clip2 = clip2.Crop(0, 112, 704, 256) 
clip2 = clip2.Subtitle("CCE") 

clip3 = avisource("k:\mce.avi") 
clip3 = clip3.Crop(0, 112, 704, 256) 
clip3 = clip3.Subtitle("MCE") 

StackVertical(clip1, clip2, clip3) 
Levels(0, 1.5, 255, 16, 255) 
ConvertToRGB()
Then load the .avs in vdub, and analyze the frames.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MainConcept Mpeg Encoder lincoln.paulino Conversão e Codificação de Vídeo (Português) 2 06-29-2004 03:10 PM
MainConcept MPEG Encoder Anonymous Convertir y Codificar Video (Español) 42 12-06-2003 10:31 PM
New MainConcept MPEG-Encoder 1.4 Razorblade2000 Video Encoding and Conversion 0 09-11-2003 07:50 AM
Mainconcept MPEG Encoder CaLaFaT Convertir y Codificar Video (Español) 5 07-12-2003 06:38 AM
TMPGEnc Plus vs Mainconcept MPEG Encoder? GetUp Video Encoding and Conversion 6 02-20-2003 07:15 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd