Canopus Procoder quality?

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Rob, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. Rob

    Rob Guest

    How is the MPEG2 quality of Canopus Procoder compared to CCE?
     
    Rob, Nov 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rob

    erratic Guest

    erratic, Nov 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Under what criteria are you labeling "quality". Quality can vary according
    to bit rate. At lower bit rates quality is not as good and it becomes a
    matter of conjecture at that point. When bit rates are higher then again it
    is conjecture. ProCoder is a very good program for the money. The Sonic
    Solutions encoding engine is very good as well. MainConcept is another good
    one - which is what is being used in the new Adobe Encore DVD.

    When encoding to bit rates of 6, 7, and 8 2-Pass VBR each of these programs
    shows out very well. Using the same bit rates for CBR also concludes with
    good quality video. Personally I wouldn't encode with any software at
    anything under these bit rates. The original quality will suffer no matter
    how good the software encoder. The only way to achieve good quality at
    really low bitrates is to use a combination of hardware and software
    multi-pass. But, they don't have anything like that for consumers - software
    or hardware is the limit, and hardware is single pass anyway.
    --
    Larry Johnson
    Digital Video Solutions
    http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
    "We Know NLE Better Than Dell or Gateway Ever Will!"
    877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Advice
    386-672-1941 Customer Service Line
    386-672-1907 Technical Support Line
    386-676-1515 Fax Line
     
    Larry Johnson, Nov 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Rob

    Bunghole Guest

    Sometime near Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:55:31 GMT, "Larry Johnson"
    Maybe so, but your lacking in the webpage department. Every link I
    clicked on was a 404. Doesn't inspire confidence...



    Bunghole
    "Life Half Open"
     
    Bunghole, Nov 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Just a thought. Do you have a firewall? If they are pop-ups, then you
    firewall may be set to stop pop-ups? Or IE may be too.
     
    Supreme Enchanter, Nov 30, 2003
    #5
  6. Rob

    Pat Guest

    Hi Larry,

    Someone on that Doom9 thread made a good point. The Procoder does field
    based (eg Interlaced Material) compession, while CCE does frame based. For
    everyone who does captures, from camcorders to videotape, analog or digital,
    the Procoder should do better. Correct?
     
    Pat, Dec 1, 2003
    #6
  7. Yes, there are a few pages missing here and there. The ones missing were
    just links to free downloads which can be found at the manufacturers'
    website, and also for driver downloads which can also be found at those same
    sites. All the pages containing information and product specs are intact. If
    we get a complaint that there are 404's then it really "doesn't inspire
    confidence" that this person is there to actually read our pages. Maybe the
    404's are there for a good reason.
     
    Larry Johnson, Dec 1, 2003
    #7
  8. Anyone who captures video ends up with interlaced material, whether obtained
    from miniDV or analog - it's all the same. Creating a progressive scen DVD
    from interlaced originals does not necessarily make the video better - it
    just plays back on a progressive scan player. And, the main benefit would
    only be seen when played back on the proper screen. Playback on a normal TV
    will still produce fields since that screen cannot create anything other
    than field based playback.

    ProCoder will do frame based output. With any of the softwares out there
    deinterlacing the video before encode is probably the best approach. If
    others have seen better output from CCE in the creation of frame based
    output may just be the software's ability to deinterlace during the encode
    process. Personally I have never trusted any software, whether it is
    ProCoder or MainConcept to perform an operation that I have the ability to
    do before feeding the material to that particular software. ProCoder can do
    color corrections, but if I want color correction should I perform that
    operation on all the video or just the sequences that really need it? In
    this instance ProCoder may perform the action, but what if my video is not
    in need of the same color corrections from start to finish?

    Maybe I have a different attitude about these things than most, which clouds
    my judgement as to what is good or bad about a software package. Whether a
    software has automated functions which are designed to cut down the steps of
    an operation or not, one cannot be assured the outcome will be up to your
    personal standards. Plenty of software packages have a few very nice
    feature, but lack in other areas where another package excels. From that I
    choose to go through the steps that ensure I will get the outcome desired by
    manually performing these operations never depending on the so-called
    "experts" who created the programs. No single program can encompass the
    needs of every individual in accordance to the creative instincts of the
    masses. Every one of us can think up something we may "need" to do and find
    that the software package we want to use will not perform it. I know this
    has happened with me plenty of time. That's why I choose to take the "long
    way home".

    --
    Larry Johnson
    Digital Video Solutions
    http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
    "We Know NLE Better Than Dell or Gateway Ever Will!"
    877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Advice
    386-672-1941 Customer Service Line
    386-672-1907 Technical Support Line
    386-676-1515 Fax Line
     
    Larry Johnson, Dec 1, 2003
    #8
  9. Rob

    erratic Guest

    The difference between field based and frame based is explained there:
    http://icsl.ee.washington.edu/~woobin/papers/General/node8.html
    I quote:
    | In MPEG-2, the term picture refers to either a frame or a field. Therefore,
    | a coded representation of a picture may be reconstructed to a frame or a
    | field. During the encoding process, the encoder has a choice of coding a
    | frame as one frame picture or two field pictures. If the encoder decides to
    | code the frame as field pictures, each field is coded independently of the
    | other, i.e., two fields are coded as if they were two different pictures,
    | each with one-half the vertical size of a frame.

    | In frame pictures, each macroblock can be predicted (using motion compensation)
    | on a frame or field basis. The frame-based prediction uses one motion vector
    | per direction (forward or backward) to describe the motion relative to the
    | reference frame. In contrast, field-based prediction uses two motion vectors,
    | one from an even field and the other from an odd field. Therefore, there can be
    | up to four vectors (two per direction, and forward and backward directions) per
    | macroblock. In field pictures, the prediction is always field-based, but the
    | prediction may be relative to either an even or odd reference field."

    Based on what I've read field based compression is better if the video
    is heavily interlaced (if it contains a lot of motion) but frame based
    is better is there's not much motion or if the video is progressive to
    begin with.
     
    erratic, Dec 1, 2003
    #9
  10. LOL! Now that's a good one!
     
    William Meyer, Dec 1, 2003
    #10
  11. Rob

    Pat Guest


    That's the key point. Other than Film based video, most of what people
    compress is interlaced. DV, Analog Captures. Therefore, perhaps the Procoder
    has a distinct advantage. However, can't you frame serve CCE, for example,
    using Avisynth scripts and preprocess the video?
     
    Pat, Dec 2, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.