DVD production: MPEG-2 Encoder Shootout | Porn Fan Community Forum

Reviewers Recommend

Hardcore Bangers 2

Hardcore Bangers 2 - review by Captain Jack
Director: Mason
Starring: GoGo Fukme, Jordy Love, Maya Farrell, Tessa Thomas. Read review

Participate...

log in
register

Browse...

Etiquette
Active Topics
Popular Topics
Member List
Search

All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 58 > DVD production: MPEG-2 Encoder Shootout

Author	Post
Ingenmann Member My 3d Porn 113 Posts 1/03	Posted - Apr 26 2004 : 4:25AM tricia_devereaux wrote: Also, the authorer (DVDemon) does not want to use Procoder to convert to MPEG-2. He feels that his conversion HARDware will compress the media much more professionally than a relatively cheap SOFTware program. However, he has no problems with the possibility of me using the program to convert from PAL to NTSC and then outputting it onto Beta from him. (We actually don't like DVDcam all that much because it glitches too much.) But we're still all in talks to see what we can do. Click to expand A year ago I made some claims about the quality of software based MPEG-2 encoder vs. hardware based encoders. But I was newer really able to back up my claims with any reliable sources. Now a good and reliable test is finally available and it shows that some cheap software based encoders can match the quality of a $25.000 piece of MPEG-2 hardware. ENCODER/TRANSCODER: - Cinema Craft Encoder CCE-SP - Canopus ProCoder - Innobits BitVice - Discreet Cleaner XL (PC) - Apple Compressor - Discreet Cleaner 6 (Mac) - Sonic Transcoder - TMPGenc HARDWARE-BASED ENCODERS: - Sonic SD-2000 Encoder - Canopus MPEG PRO MPEG-2 Encoder Shootout MPEG-2 Encoder Shootout - the scoreboard in pdf format The beauty of it all that you can to directly from DV to MPEG-2 to DVD in a pure digital workflow using a $500 MPEG-2 tool. Edited by - ingenmann on Apr 26 2004 [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Apr 30 2004 : 11:18PM tricia_devereaux wrote: Also, the authorer (DVDemon) does not want to use Procoder to convert to MPEG-2. He feels that his conversion HARDware will compress the media much more professionally than a relatively cheap SOFTware program. However, he has no problems with the possibility of me using the program to convert from PAL to NTSC and then outputting it onto Beta from him. (We actually don't like DVDcam all that much because it glitches too much.) But we're still all in talks to see what we can do. Click to expand It's hard for me to believe that whatever advantage a hardware encoder might have over a software encoder, that that advantage would not be entirely defeated by the all the noise that passing through BetaSP (presumably with a digital to analog and then analog to digital conversion along the way) would induce. Noise is the number one enemy of quality encodes. Add on top of that a PAL to NTSC conversion, and I can't believe that digital PAL to digital NTSC to MPEG, all via software wouldn't be better. But just cause I can't believe it doesn't mean it's not so. Color me surprised. -T.C. [Link]
Ingenmann Member My 3d Porn 113 Posts 1/03	Posted - May 1 2004 : 5:25AM TonyC wrote: tricia_devereaux wrote: Also, the authorer (DVDemon) does not want to use Procoder to convert to MPEG-2. He feels that his conversion HARDware will compress the media much more professionally than a relatively cheap SOFTware program. However, he has no problems with the possibility of me using the program to convert from PAL to NTSC and then outputting it onto Beta from him. (We actually don't like DVDcam all that much because it glitches too much.) But we're still all in talks to see what we can do. Click to expand It's hard for me to believe that whatever advantage a hardware encoder might have over a software encoder, that that advantage would not be entirely defeated by the all the noise that passing through BetaSP (presumably with a digital to analog and then analog to digital conversion along the way) would induce. Noise is the number one enemy of quality encodes. Add on top of that a PAL to NTSC conversion, and I can't believe that digital PAL to digital NTSC to MPEG, all via software wouldn't be better. But just cause I can't believe it doesn't mean it's not so. Color me surprised. -T.C. Click to expand Quinn Roberts wrote: Posted - Jul 30 2003 : 02:41:17 PM We've recently switched to software based encoding for all products, including our latest DDF productions. You'll notice a huge leap in quality starting with "Three For All" on DVD followed by "Pleasures of the Flesh #4" and "Three For All #2". The new process really preserves the integrity of the original Pal camera masters. Our NTSC based products are also looking a lot better. Check out "Lessons in Lust" if you want get a feel for the quality we're putting into our newer volumes. In my opinion it's one of the most beautiful gonzo/wall to wall style movies we've ever produced. We hope to show that high production values don't interfere with down and dirty hot sex with hot girls. Quinn Roberts Head of Production New Sensations/Digital Sin Click to expand I've only got a couple of New Newsensation releases, but when it comes on the visual quality the sure beat the pants of everybody else right now. They are both european based so they probably originates from a PAL DV camera. Edited by - ingenmann on 5/1/2004 5:27:33 AM [Link]
daviangel Member Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital 455 Posts 1/04	Posted - May 1 2004 : 2:53PM Yeah I can vouch for the picture quality on the new DDF productions the quality is noticably above the rest. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - May 1 2004 : 3:11PM I don't understand the argument of hardware vs. software encoders. It's all software folks. A 'hardware' encoder is just an application-specific box of chips and code designed to perform a single task very well. They make use of digital signal processors, microcontrollers, D/A converters and much of the same stuff you'll find in a PC these days. MPEG encoding is a software algorithm. Use a fast enough computer with lots of RAM and a fast caching RAID array and you should get see similar quality. This opinion is merely from a computer/hardware engineering perspective. [Link]

daviangel Member Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital 455 Posts 1/04	Posted - May 1 2004 : 4:36PM Drew Black wrote: I don't understand the argument of hardware vs. software encoders. It's all software folks. A 'hardware' encoder is just an application-specific box of chips and code designed to perform a single task very well. They make use of digital signal processors, microcontrollers, D/A converters and much of the same stuff you'll find in a PC these days. MPEG encoding is a software algorithm. Use a fast enough computer with lots of RAM and a fast caching RAID array and you should get see similar quality. This opinion is merely from a computer/hardware engineering perspective. Click to expand You just said it yourself in "theory" with enough ram,etc you should get similar quality. In reality you'd be suprised at some of the hardware out there still in use PC wise anyways. I've seen people trying to run windows xp on a 486 with a 2 meg videocard and wonder why it's so slow or why they can't do video editing on it? [Link]
Ingenmann Member My 3d Porn 113 Posts 1/03	Posted - May 1 2004 : 6:53PM Drew Black wrote: I don't understand the argument of hardware vs. software encoders. It's all software folks. Click to expand It is not hardware vs. software issue. My whole point in my discussion with Tricia was to keep the video in the digital domain through out the production process. If you shoot on DV you can transcode directly from a DV file to MPEG-2 file using a software or hardware based transcoder. Evil Angel makes a copy of the DV movie on to a analog BetaSP because their DVD author uses a hardware encoder with a analog input. By doing so the digital production chain is broken. [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - May 2 2004 : 6:03PM Drew Black wrote: I don't understand the argument of hardware vs. software encoders. <snip. This opinion is merely from a computer/hardware engineering perspective. Click to expand Presuming enough system horse-power, you might be correct. Where hardware solutions come into their own is when a typical desktop system doesn't have sufficient horsepower to do the job to the same degree of quality in the same amount of time Where consumer oriented gear is concerned, visual quality will always be sacrificed for speed, convience, and price. I'm sure you're familar with Zeno's paradox, and it's a good way to look at consumer grade gear vs. professional grade gear. 2 years ago, a $500 software only encoder was "good enough" for the masses, but really wasn't up to spec for professional work. Maybe it could have been made to work better, but my guess is that is would have work much more slowly than a dedicated black box. Same with cameras. You can get a lot for $3500. But if what you could get for $3500 was good enough for professional work, why would anyone ever spend $35K for a camera. In the case of encoders, I think the onboard horse-power of a modern system be sufficient that a black box doesn't make sense unless you're encoding a lot of material. A G5 processor can to inter-codec translations in real time that no black box from 3 years ago could dream of. (10 bit to DV, DV to 10 bit, etc.) But 5 years ago, the only way to get realtime analog to digital/digital to analog was with purpose built chips/boards. -T.C. [Link]

All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 58DVD production: MPEG-2 Encoder Shootout

Previous topic: msnusers.com popup
Next topic: blacksonblondes.com

Link to this post

Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post.

URL of this thread

Link to this post with HTML

Link to this post with Forum Code