Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoder comparison

2003-01-31 Thread Robert Kesterson
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Andrew Stevens wrote: > (RE: Encoder comparisons) > Yes. mpeg2enc is definately sub-optimal in allocating bits based on how > likely it is quantisation will show up. It should get better but I have to > improved the internal "infrastructure" first. I will be borrowing a lot

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoder comparison

2003-01-31 Thread Andrew Stevens
On Saturday 25 Jan 2003 8:31 pm, Robert Kesterson wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Matti Haveri wrote: > > The first three places were taken by TMPGEnc, ProCoder and Digital > > Media Press. mpeg2enc did rather well, too. > > > > > > A few days ago, I did a compar

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoder comparison

2003-01-25 Thread Robert Kesterson
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Matti Haveri wrote: > > The first three places were taken by TMPGEnc, ProCoder and Digital > Media Press. mpeg2enc did rather well, too. > > A few days ago, I did a comparison of mpeg2enc vs CCE, which is supopsedly *the* enocder to use fo

[Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoder comparison

2003-01-25 Thread Matti Haveri
The following site has a MPEG2 encoder comparison (Apple's QT Encoder, BitVice, Cleaner 6, Digital Media Press, Media Pipe (mpeg2enc as its engine), Media Press Pro, ProCoder and TMPGEnc). The first three places were taken by TMPGEnc, ProCoder and Digital Media Press. mpeg2enc did rather well,