digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)
-   -   Is ffmpegX Quality the same as TMPGEnc? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/5337-ffmpegx-quality-tmpgenc.html)

Razorblade2000 09-01-2003 06:19 PM

Is ffmpegX Quality the same as TMPGEnc?
 
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! :D

kwag 09-01-2003 07:34 PM

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

-kwag

incredible 09-05-2003 09:03 AM

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 09-05-2003 10:50 AM

On my preliminary tests using ffmpegX and ffmpeg (not mpeg2enc), quality is looking better than TMPEG 8O ( more tests to come! )
The motion estimation is SUPERB :!:
I can't get that with mpeg2enc :roll:

@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 09-05-2003 01:24 PM

so it's faster and looks better :D

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

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

incredible 09-05-2003 01:54 PM

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 09-05-2003 02:08 PM

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 09-05-2003 02:52 PM

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 09-05-2003 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major4
Yes, ffmpeg has better image quality, also it's incredibly fast.

It sure is :D
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 09-06-2003 08:20 AM

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...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2026 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2026 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.