Mpeg Encoder ratings

[wvp]

If you had to rate MPEG encoders (such as, but not limited to, TMPGEnc, ProCoder, SpeedEdit, Main Concept, etc, etc.) on a scale of 1-10 based on quality only how would you rate?
How about if you factored in price?

[ScorpioProd]

You're missing one of the other critical factors that comes into play, namely, the time it takes to encode.

This type of question is subjective anyway, for two important reasons:

Anyone that is very into MPEG-2 encoding will probably be quite expert at their encoder of choice. For instance, I honestly consider myself an expert at getting the most out of TMPGEnc. I've used a couple other encoders, but not enough to consider myself knowledgeable enough to get the most out of them. And I'll never forget a side by side comparison I read once where the testers weren't smart enough to be able to get TMPGEnc to work! That totally invalidated all their conclusions in the rest of their testing for me.

The other issue is as seen in the comments on comparison threads that include pictures, different people value different things in the image more than others.

So that said, based on quality, price and speed, without question, TMPGEnc 2.5 is my top choice. I give it a 10 for everything.

I only got to try ProCoder in the form of the ProCoder Express that came with the demo of EDIUS 4 that I tried. It was OK, but it didn't have the controls I needed, so I don't rate it that highly. The full version probably has a lot more controls. I don't feel I used it enough to give it a numerical rating.

I've used the MainConcept encoder in Vegas 7 on my friend's system, I use TMPGEnc for my own Vegas 7 encoding, and the MainConcept encoder seemed fine for normal work. But I saw some analysis in a website somewhere that showed some deficiencies in how the MainConcept encoder did its 2-pass VBR, compared to other encoders, in terms of it not changing data rate as much as others on the same footage. Since it is free with Vegas 7, cost isn't an issue. Speed as I recall was decent. Qualty, well, for normal footage it's OK. Again, I don't feel I've used it enough to give it a numerical rating.

CCE I've heard good things about, but never tried it.

Then there's SpeedEDIT. In the past, I wasn't impressed with my tests of it. Testing 8Mb/s CBR in SpeedEDIT versus rendering to DV and then TMPGEncing resulted in higher speed and quality via the latter. More importantly, it wasn't a subtle quality issue, I hit some significant artifact issues in SpeedEDIT's encode, which there is no way I should have at max data rate CBR. So needless to say, I wasn't happy with SpeedEDIT's encoder. Cost was free with SpeedEDIT, speed was slower than TMPGEnc, even accounting for rendering to DV first to get the project to TMPGEnc, and the quality was lower than TMPGEnc. But again, I don't feel I can give it a numerical rating.

I am willing to give it another shot in SpeedEDIT 1.2, though. Newtek has fixed some of the bugs in it, like the minimum data rate bug when doing 2-pass VBR. So when I have a chance, I'll do some tests and compare it with TMPGEnc. But really, this will only be totally apples to apples if there is a project loader to TMPGEnc for a real direct project to encoder test comparison.

Both TMPGEnc and SpeedEDIT now support forcing I-frames from project markers and exporting marker lists so they can be used for chapter points in certain authoring applications. I don't know if the other encoders support this.

But again, speaking as a TMPGEnc expert, I have to point out some of the other advantages it has. Though SpeedEDIT has a lot of "interesting" controls in their MPEG encoder, there is plenty of stuff that TMPGEnc has that give me the ability to tweak what I need, that SpeedEDIT or any of the others, TTBOMK, don't have.

For instance, when doing really long-form projects, there is a great soften block noise function in TMPGEnc. For noisy analog home formats, there is an amazing spacial and temporal noise reduction. When doing halfD1 resolution work on extreme long-form, there is the adjustable clipping of the frame to prevent scaling artifacts. Or masking to get rid of any edge analog artifacts (or Newtek DVE edge problems).

For myself, I have no need or desire to master another MPEG-2 encoder near the end of the SD DVD encoding lifetime. TMPGEnc is simply that good.

[wvp]

You're missing one of the other critical factors that comes into play, namely, the time it takes to encode.

This type of question is subjective anyway...
:agree: Thanks for the comments nontheless.
I thought it might still prove useful to have peoples thoughts of how encoders have worked for them.

For example: I too use TMPGEnc. Based on Quality alone, I would say maybe a 7 or 8 (not that I have come across better, but I know there is). Factor cost in and its a 10. If another encoder cost say $250 or $500 but was signifcantly better quality and/or signifcantly faster then perhaps I would invest.

Of course you are right that its not long before its HD encoding and a whole new ball of fun!