Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- From: "PTravel" <ptravel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:46:45 -0700
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PoadnbMX76MCoZrYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Doc" <docsavage20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158089565.289425.153380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I d/l'd it and it's telling me the 30-day trial is expired.
Got this computer off ebay so don't know what the previous owner had.
Would rather not pop the $48 until I see with my own eyeballs if it
does a noticebly better job on mpeg2 files.
Also, would you say it's a valid comparison to take a .bmp capture on a
particular frame on mpegs made from the same source file by different
programs?
So far I've done captures from mpegs created by Pinnacle & Ulead DVD
studio 7 at what they're calling "DVD compatible" as well as the
highest bit rate mpeg2 each will do - 12000 kbps on Pinnacle and 14000
on Ulead. Comparing each to the same frame from the original DV source
file, they both show a very obvious degradation of the image. Wonderig
if I'm going to see anything better out of TMPGEnc.
I think you misunderstand the nature of modern
compression techniques, and the difference between
a still image and how your brain interrupts a series of
images displayed at a particular rate. A frame of
DV-25 will always look better as a still image, than
a single frame of a more compressed format, like
MPEG.
One of the most effective ways of compressing video
is to throw away the still image data that humans can't
perceive when those images are displayed as part of a
series of images. DV-25, being less lossy, retains more
of this useless still image data in its frames. This is a
good thing if you are asking a program to recreate a
still image from an individual frame of video, but is not
of any great value if you need a smaller more compressed
video file ( to say fit on a DVD ).
[Now PT will jump in here and rant about how that means
that his DV-25 provides a better source for his multi-pass
"re-transcoding" to MPEG.
Apples and oranges, Ken. I agree with your explanation about compression,
above. From the standpoint of the OP's test of transcoders, it makes sense
to use a non-temporally compressed source, since the original temporal
compression may interact in unpleasant ways with different transcoders,
irrespective of the quality of the video that they produce.
So you should first convert all
your video to DV-AVI.
If it's not already in DV-codec avi which, from what the OP has said, most
of it is.
But he can never understand that
there is an even better source for MPEG encoding, that's
the direct output of an A/D chip.
I can't understand that? Why? Are you writing in some language other than
English? It sure looked like English to me.
The A/D chip can be in a
camera connected to (or part of) the image sensor(s), or it
can be part of a DVD Recorder, or it can be in a capture
card/box connected to your PC. ] [With any luck that will
avoid a diversion of this thread. If someone can't resist, at
least change the subject line to start your own branch of this
thread.]
You've already diverted this thread. There's no way that the OP can readily
access the uncompressed output of the A/D chip, so the discussion is
irrelevant.
Since you are working with DV source material it is just a
matter of how to "best" encode that to DVD compliant
MPEG.
Exactly. Now you're back on topic.
You have indicated that you are looking for the
method that can provide the best image quality, and that
would mean you will likely need to trade speed and $$$ to
get what you are asking for. If you want very good and
very fast, you are going to need very many $$$.
Completely agree. In terms of what the OP has at hand, the compromises look
like this:
Pinnacle = $, fast, not very good.
tmpgenc = $, very slow, very good
MainConcept = $$, fast, good
Ligos = $$$, fast, very good.
I think his comparison tests are interesting (or, at least show initiative),
but they're really unnecessary. I think you and I agree that, if you can
put up with the slow transcode times, tmpgenc is going to produce
dramatically higher quality mpeg2 than Pinnacle.
( One other thing to remember is that the DVD standard
limits the overall bitrate and complexity of the MPEG data
used in a DVD. Being able to create MPEG at a higher
bitrate won't be of much use for making DVDs.)
You can get very good but relatively slow for a more
reasonable number of $$$. CCE Basic, TMPGEnc 2.5
Plus)
I don't know of a free encoder that actually does as well
as even the reasonably priced encoders, but they can come
very close.
Are there free mpeg transcoders? I didn't know that. I hear that question
asked frequently.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- From: Alpha
- Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- From: Ken Maltby
- Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- References:
- Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- From: Doc
- Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- From: Ken Maltby
- Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- Prev by Date: Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- Next by Date: Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- Next by thread: Re: Does TMPGEnc still offer a 30-day trial?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
