Quantcast Is FFmpegx Quality the Same as TMPGEnc? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
09-01-2003, 06:19 PM
Razorblade2000 Razorblade2000 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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!
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
  #2  
09-01-2003, 07:34 PM
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
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
09-05-2003, 09:03 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
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!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
09-05-2003, 10:50 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
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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
09-05-2003, 01:24 PM
Razorblade2000 Razorblade2000 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
09-05-2003, 01:54 PM
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
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
09-05-2003, 02:08 PM
Razorblade2000 Razorblade2000 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
09-05-2003, 02:52 PM
major4 major4 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
09-05-2003, 05:57 PM
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 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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
09-06-2003, 08:20 AM
japie japie is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 106
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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...
__________________
Groetjes Japie
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ffmpegX: How do you burn the KVCD? BubbaStrangelove Video Encoding and Conversion 1 12-25-2006 05:16 PM
ffmpegX: Subititle does not work? wolverine Video Encoding and Conversion 11 09-12-2004 01:25 PM
ffmpegX: Only for Mac? nicksteel Video Encoding and Conversion 1 01-27-2004 05:39 PM
FfmpegX 0.0.9 released major4 Video Encoding and Conversion 0 10-11-2003 08:30 PM
FfmpegX 0.0.8c released major4 Video Encoding and Conversion 0 09-15-2003 03:13 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd