RB 1.03 Pro vs DVD2ONE v2 vs ...

[nwg]

i have used sapstar's AUTOQMATENC 32b

It must be new as I haven't heard of that one yet.

Looks like I have seen the website for it.

http://www.vmesquita.com/sapstar/

[jeo]

i have used sapstar's AUTOQMATENC 32b

Sapstar is developing inside one (crap)brazilian forum where tons of kids are mods.
the first target of the encoder is the "perfect final size" and not quality because they put 5,10 and sometimes 15 movies for one dvd-5(believe or not) and they have proud of it.the matrices used have lots of 245,236,215 in "everywhere" and more others out of mpeg compliance.(Rockas posted about brasilian team compliance in dvd-rb doom9)

if you have time to loose go and read in that forum and take care: you will see lots of crazy ideas to use in the encoder and lots of bla bla blas(ego massages and fool words).
if you read something posted by "guess".....was me,i run out !
i'm sad because they call the place as "brazilian "don't remeber what" forum"....some like this.

regards

[edit] Rockas comments

This may be useful for matrices like the BDVD - it is known that the first Intra value is not Mpeg standard

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=97114

[jeo]

off topic (UncasMS,if needed delete this post later,is really ot)

the first target of the encoder is the "perfect final size" and not quality

am i any prophet?!?

this was posted a few minutes : http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...613#post742613

you can't see any screenshot for comparisons,if have quality,if any filter was used to encrease compression...nothing.
the real target is size!
ot off

[UncasMS]

maybe the last person who replied (DK) only wanted to express that the output size was right on spot because somebody before (rippraff, who is quite familiar with what he is doing) stated that the size was a little bit oversized?

i dont dare saying that thread is useless gibberish

[jeo]

ok UncasMS.

reading(long hours)in aqe forum,all i could find was search for perfect size first,
the quality is in second place(or faraway)

when you was using autoqmatenc 32b in your tests here you got matrices like:

http://www.vmesquita.com/forum/index.php?topic=5014.msg35028#msg35028

regards

[UncasMS]

well, i wasnt interested in final output size but the quantization and matrix usage caught my interest

[UncasMS]

here are cce 270 results with aqm enabled:

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

[ElBoricua433]

I wonder how HC will do now

[UncasMS]

me, too ^_~

[UncasMS]

finally some results with HC ENC 016

encoding time: 177 min
2pass, best

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

[blutach]

I have been reading this thread with interest. My first thought was that gee AQE did a fine fine job. Still do think this. And HC16 does too.

CCE 2.7 still looks a bit blocky to me.

Regards

[UncasMS]

some final words

this is where i see differences


1:
the AQE output is slightly better than hc; it is less noisy
cce (with aqm enabled) is the "worst" of the bunch and procoder beats everything in this very frame


2:
again AQE is just a little bit better than hc in this frame, but the differences can only be seen when directly comparing two screenshots - moving pictures cannot reveal the difference at all

cce LEFT, procoder RIGHT:


procoder again is the best here imho and cce CLEARLY looses with visibly more noise and artefacts!

3:
comparing AQE and hc in this frame i must say: DRAW
both encoder do an excellent job and there is hardly any difference at all
procoder again wins the contest as it doesnt even show artefacts in those very spots where hc and aqe did and cce again clearly looks worst

cce LEFT, procoder RIGHT:


4:
in this frame aqe is better than hc showing much less noise
again procoder is the one to beat: where aqe showed a little mosquito noise procoder worked better

cce LEFT, procoder RIGHT:



5:
AQE is a bit grainy and shows mosquito noise around the heads/contrast where hc, cce and procoder work a tad better for my taste

cce LEFT, procoder RIGHT:




as a sidenote:

AQE has improved from version 30.0.3 to 32.0.1 - those were the two builds that i have used and compared

in addition to picture improvement from 30 to 32 the speed has very much increased:
30.0.3 => 421 min
32.0.1 => 179 min

these areas for example look way better in the latest build 32.0.1 compared to 30.0.3

i have marked the areas where i spot the biggest differences:



all in all i must say that the transcoder results cannot cope with what the 4 encoders were able to produce

then there is the interesting result that two freeware encoders beat the almighty cce in 4 out of 5 cases

and the reason why i prefer procoder is once again obvious i should think

[blutach]

Gee, UncasMS, you're taking your life in your own hands there. There are lots of CCE lovers out there - misguided souls they are.

How many Procoder 2s would be sold do you reckon if they made it US$200. I reckon sales would easily outstrip the price differential.

Regards

[UncasMS]

the question is why do so many people use cce and nothing else

pros and cons dont seem obvious to all

pro:
- fastest encoder available

con:
- blocky in lower bitrates
- more expensive (than freeware encoders of course)


then there should be the aspect that many users bought the basic version quite some time ago when no/hardly any freeware encoder was within reach

so last but not least i dont dare saying that cce isnt worth its money because time is money but more importantly i am pleased that in many comparisons i have done the freeware results came out excellent and thus i think those freeware encoders deserve some attention

[elizerrojas]

to the creators of the free ones, thanks. special thanks to hank315 and jdobbs for thier freebies are the very best.