Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Showing results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Another quality comparison using SPIDERMAN

  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default Another quality comparison using SPIDERMAN

    i have compared the following transcoder/encoder against each other:

    DVD2one v 2.04
    CCE 2.70
    CloneDVD2.5x
    CloneDVD2.8x
    HC 017
    ProCoder2
    Recode2
    DVDShrink32015

    cce, hc and procoder were used via dvdrebuilder PRO 1.081
    cce was used with 3 passes
    hc with profile BEST
    procoder2 with mastering quality
    shrink was used with max smoothness + aec
    clonedvd, dvd2one and recode with the best settings i could find available


    spiderman was converted with all languages and all bonus/extra material
    the avertage bitrate was ~2.200kbps


    Click here to see the screenshots
    Last edited by UncasMS; 18 Mar 2006 at 12:00 PM

  2. #2
    Digital Video Expert
    Digital Video Expert
    sonic_emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    croatia
    Posts
    560

    Default

    im colorblind for some colours,and i took a look only at first pic...and only ones i was interested in(shrink/procoder/hc) and i think procoder did the best job...
    waiting for someone with better eyes to take a look at all of them...

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    i am the last to object ^_~

  4. #4
    Digital Video Technician
    Digital Video Technician

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    484

    Default

    wow! great work. thanks a lot Uncass.
    just a few comments. as spected, encoders are king, procoder best(wow), HC and CCE more or less the same. from what i can see, among the transcoders, shrink and recode2 have the same quality. the others are not so good.

    p:s: the slowest transcoders(shrink and recode2 are slower than the rest, specially with AEC and deep A.) produce better quality.
    encoders are much slower than transcoders and the produce the best quality. so. more time= better quality.

  5. #5
    Digital Video Technician
    Digital Video Technician

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    484

    Default

    for transcoder that has not and will not be updated again, shrink is GREAT.
    Last edited by elizerrojas; 18 Mar 2006 at 11:47 AM

  6. #6
    DD folding team l8nights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    76

    Default

    once again outstanding work Uncas, you are indeed a patient soul.

    for an overall vote I've have to go with pro2

    the only thing I could think of better would be side by side real time frame set's

    kudo's glad someone does the leg work instead of stating, "the best is..." =)

  7. #7
    Left *****
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonic_emperor
    im colorblind for some colours,and i took a look only at first pic...and only ones i was interested in(shrink/procoder/hc) and i think procoder did the best job...
    waiting for someone with better eyes to take a look at all of them...
    I am colour blind as well (red and green). Procoder also looks the best to me. Shrink and Recode look almost identical and no clear winner out of those two. The worse was DVD2One which didn't surprise me at all.

    There was also little to choose from between HC and CCE. It has reinforced what I use. I use Shrink a lot but use DVD-RB on 50%-60% reduction DVD's. I then use Procoder if I want to get the best results and use HCEnc instead of CCE as it produces similar results and is free.

  8. #8
    Lord of Digital Video
    Lord of Digital Video
    tigerman8u's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    that's a really good comparison
    thanx UncasMS

  9. #9
    He is coming to your little town! BR7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sioux City,IA
    Posts
    2,137

    Default

    I'm thinking about going to ebay and pick up procoder 2.0 it does a great job but anyway back to the topic UncasMS thanks for taking the time to do this your hard work is appreciated
    EDIT
    @ UncasMS
    Procoder2 is a bit pricey what's your opinion on Procoder Express would it be with worth the $60 I can get it for
    Last edited by BR7; 19 Mar 2006 at 08:57 AM

  10. #10
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    i am not too sure wether the express version will be doing a good job or not

    and more importantly i doubt it will work correctly with rb but again: i am not sure - i never tried

  11. #11
    He is coming to your little town! BR7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sioux City,IA
    Posts
    2,137

    Default

    Thanks UncasMS

  12. #12
    If you have any poo....throw it now Furiousg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Wow. Procoder looks terrific in those comparisons.

    And I really like the layout of the tests Uncas. Really helps with comparing the shots.
    Thanx a huge bunch !

  13. #13
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    thanks

    i decided to create a separate page as i did not want extremely long loading times once again each and every time one opens this thread

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5

    Default

    ok to admit that procoder looks better than others
    but it alters the picture a lot! trading details for a better looking whole picture. am i wrong?

    also the colors seem a bit saturated/darkened compared with original and others competitors.

    this reminds me xvid vs divx contests where xvid won for details kept at the cost of a little blokier picture, whereas divx showed a cleaner picture but less detailed and blurry.

    sure procoder looks greater on still images, but i prefer keeping noise and details, and the conformity of colors.

    i'll pick HC for the quality/free aspect.

    a question though: was HC used in OPV mode? and is there a big trade-off using OPV or not?

  15. #15
    Banned techreactor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donpipo
    and is there a big trade-off using OPV or not?
    I can only answer this part since I tried using OPV and trust me, OPV does not give you good sharp pictures, nowhere near the 2 pass, unless you have got a high bitrate available.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Quality comparison b/w encoders
    By atifsh in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9 Jan 2004, 07:21 AM
  2. GOOD QUALITY DIGITAL video from analog video - IS IT POSSIBLE?!
    By berezner in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24 Jul 2003, 12:28 PM
  3. regarding the quality of the source (STR)...?
    By ripley_B in forum AVI, DivX/Xvid
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 6 Jan 2003, 05:58 AM
  4. bottom line quality comparison issue
    By Ricci in forum Conversion/Encoding
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19 Jan 2002, 08:12 PM
  5. Bottom Line quality comparison issue.
    By Ricci in forum Authoring
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19 Jan 2002, 06:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •