Re: [Mjpeg-developer] workaround (PPC) for mpeg2enc's buggyness

[herve.flores <her...@fr...>]

Le 23 mars 07 =E0 18:44, Steven M. Schultz a =E9crit :

>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Burkhard Plaum wrote:
>
>> If you already talk about "competitors": Are there any figures =20
>> about how
>> mpeg2enc compares to ffmpeg (wrt to speed,

I use the 2 tools,
ffmpeg is speeder (but mpeg2enc is not slow)

>> quality and bitstream compatibility)?

quality doesn't mean nothing with ffmpeg (you can produce real =20
bullshit as great quality, depends of parameters), with mpeg2enc =20
you'll just have quality


> 	At that time ffmpeg had rate control issues that were causing =20=

> coasters
> 	to be burned in fairly large quantities (rate too high).  Almost
> 	certainly fixed now

yes (if you encode with quality parameters)

> 	Both encoders suffer the splotches or blockyness in the =
dark/black
> 	areas.

mpeg2enc can be better in this case (certainly because it uses a =20
fixed quantizer and ffmpeg an adaptative quantizer that can too much =20
reduce the bitrate)

> 	I know that topic has come up numerous times on the mjepgtools
> 	mailing lists.

ffmpeg is bad with low bitrate
mpeg2enc can handle low bitrate with quality

ffmpeg is speeder (even with b frames)

mpeg2enc can include the pulldown bit  during encoding (for NTSC =20
film), ffmpeg no

ffmpeg can treat audio and video directly (and mux too)

mpeg2enc has releases and documentation (ffmpeg "no")

etc
etc
etc

> 	Cheers,
> 	Steven Schultz

there's advantages and disadvantages in each tool (I use both and =20
both are great ;-))



Herv=E9=