TMPGEnc smokes MainConcept?

newUzer wrote on 3/12/2009, 12:02 AM
Is it just me or does frameserving (using the DebugMode FrameServer) out of Vegas to TMPGEnc produce a hell-of-a-lot better result than the internal Mainconcept MPEG1 encoder? I'm doing 720x480 29.97p (yes, progressive) widescreen renders so folks can drop them into either Mac or PC PowerPoint presentations, and TMPGEnc just seems to produce noticeably better results - both in terms of smaller file size and fewer MPEG artifacts.

Comments

Grazie wrote on 3/12/2009, 12:51 AM
Excuse me? You are going MC MPEG1? And then the other way is TMPGEnc? What "flavour" of TMPGEnc are you using? MPEG1? Are you ALSO using TMPGEnc for generating MPEG1? Is that it? Is that correct? MPEG1 for MC and TMPGEnc?

I vaguely remember doing some "tweaks" in TMPGEnc and creating some extraordinary MPEG1s. Was it SVCD formats? But I got real close to MPEG2 - and at one point I cold not see the difference. I do remember being able to get to more tweaks in TMPGEnc - maybe that was it?

Nice to see somebody digging up MPEG1 again - I need to remember that . .

Grazie
Rory Cooper wrote on 3/12/2009, 1:47 AM
O yes Tmpeg does a good job

But they need to get their act together regarding registering new software

I bought the new tmpeg 4 which does AVCHD conversion for my PC which is not on line
Well I can’t use it so its sits on my desk now as another coffee doily with Nero 8

Their reply was that’s its not there problem
Ok so I made a mistake in purchasing TMPEG 4

I use Tmpeg express 3 for PP presentations and its very good
convert content to MPEG 1 and no matter which pc the pres is on no hassels
TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/12/2009, 7:11 AM
that's precisely why I use tmpgenc plus. No stupid online required!
John_Cline wrote on 3/12/2009, 7:52 AM
It is comon knowledge that the Main Concept MPEG1 encoder leaves a little to be desired, although its MPEG2 encoder is quite good. Your observation that the TMPGEnc encoder produces better looking results on MPEG1 files has been confirmed by any number of posts here over the years.

Your observation that it produces smaller files isn't quite as true. The resulting file size when encoding to MPEG1, MPEG2, AVCHD, DivX etc is strictly a function of bitrate. One would expect any encoder to produce the same size file at a given bitrate, completely independent of frame size and frame rate.
MJPollard wrote on 3/12/2009, 11:54 AM
That's why I've stayed with TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 all these years. I've grudgingly come to accept online registration/activation as a fact of life these days, but I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with software that has to keep "phoning home" in order to continue to prove that I'm not a damn criminal. Any company whose lack of trust in their customers is THAT low is a company with whom I will no longer do business, regardless of the quality of their current/future products.
ScorpioProd wrote on 3/12/2009, 1:15 PM
TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 still working great here as well.

If one knows the many tweaks that can be applied in TMPGEnc Plus 2.5, it can produce better MPEG-2 results than Vegas native MainConcept encoder.

The MainConcept encoder is good, but I find TMPGEnc to be better.
John_Cline wrote on 3/12/2009, 1:26 PM
The MainConcept encoder is good, but I find TMPGEnc to be better.

And I find the results from Canopus Procoder to be even better still.
kentwolf wrote on 3/12/2009, 8:06 PM
>>...stayed with TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 all these years...

I am a registered user of TMPGEnc something or another. Whatever version it is, I went to their web site and I can't even tell what versoin is what anymore. I am not dumb, but it is really unclear as to what is what. Whatever I have (uninstalled now), I've had it for something like 5 years..

Ditto MainConcept.

It looks like the only incarnation of any stand-alone MPG2 encode is some thing that costs something $800 in some modular scheme.

I was looking to do some updates/upgrades and they are either unclear as to what is what, or they have priced the little guy out of using their products.
newUzer wrote on 3/12/2009, 8:59 PM
Grazie,

Yes, rendering from Vegas using the MC MPEG1 encoder, and then comparing that to what the latest free version of TMPGEnc can do by frameserving to TMPGEnc using the Vegas 8 compatible Frameserver from DebugMode.
Terje wrote on 3/14/2009, 10:59 AM
OK, I'll bite. Why would anyone care? I am wrecking my brain and I am unable to come up with a single compelling reason for encoding to MPEG-1. Is there one? For net distribution last century it was a fine format, and when DVD burners were expensive, it was excellent for cheap home stuff on CD, but now? Why? For anything with the resolution mentioned here it seems to me to be an absurd format to choose.

Just curious. Have I missed something?
craftech wrote on 3/14/2009, 2:41 PM
OK, I'll bite. Why would anyone care? I am wrecking my brain and I am unable to come up with a single compelling reason for encoding to MPEG-1. Is there one? For net distribution last century it was a fine format, and when DVD burners were expensive, it was excellent for cheap home stuff on CD, but now? Why? For anything with the resolution mentioned here it seems to me to be an absurd format to choose.

Yes.
It is still the most widely compatible video and audio format in the entire world.
John
Terje wrote on 3/14/2009, 5:40 PM
>> It is still the most widely compatible video and audio format in the entire world.

Well, that is always a good thing, but still, is there a single reason to use it? Honestly. It is a terrible format to encode for, it is EXTREMELY lossy at reasonable bitrates, and really doesn't make any kind of sense.

You gave me a "technical" reason. It isn't really a "business" reason. If someone is interested in watching anything moving on screen today they either have flash installed (and can therefore watch low bitrate MPEG-4) and/or they have a player installed that can at least play divx, wmv, QuickTime and so on. Most computers today can play one, more or all of the better suited video formats. Particularly at the resolution mentioned here.
John_Cline wrote on 3/14/2009, 9:28 PM
The only significant difference between MPEG1 and MPEG2 is that MPEG2 can handle interlaced video.

MPEG1 is natively supported in all the major operating systems, you must install a player with any other like Flash, DivX, WMV, Quicktime etc. i.e. the Mac OS doesn't natively support WMV and Windows doesn't natively support Quicktime. Neither supports Flash or DivX natively. MPEG1 requires considerably less horsepower to decode than the newer formats, therefore it is playable on even the creakiest old systems.
musicvid10 wrote on 3/14/2009, 9:48 PM
Very well stated, John.

Terje said:
"OK, I'll bite. Why would anyone care? I am wrecking my brain and I am unable to come up with a single compelling reason for encoding to MPEG-1. Is there one?"

Besides John's factual explanation above --
One word, "PowerPoint."
John_Cline wrote on 3/14/2009, 10:00 PM
Thank you.

I meant to mention that the MPEG1 standard specifically defines the bitstream parameters and decoder function, but doesn't say exactly how MPEG1 encoding is to be performed. This means that the quality of MPEG1 encoding can vary pretty dramatically depending on the encoder algorithm employed. This usually means that newer encoders perform significantly better than older encoders. MPEG1 video can look very good at moderate bitrates, if it doesn't, then your encoder is probably to blame. MPEG1 can handle images up to 4096x4096 and bitrates as high as 100 Mbits/sec.

Also, MPEG1 video and MPEG Layer 1 & 2 audio don't require any licensing fees of any kind.