[MEncoder-users] Call for video encoding settings

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:11:21PM +0200, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
[...]
> > Short analysis of the results: lavc is very good to compress VERY fast
> > and well, XviD seems a bit better for fast High quality encode, and
> > x264 kicks ass when encoding for very high quality.
> 
> In two pass mode, in High Quality settings x264 kicks ass and takes
> names (PSNR-wise). Now, maybe a 'blind test" could give the "best open
> source codec" crown to one of the ASP codecs, or maybe Snow, as H.264
> is advantaged by the inloop filter (at least, that's my undertanding).
> 
> lavc is still the fastest and best codec when doing some fast/realtime
> encode, and XviD is both fast and of good quality for normal encode
> (note that 2-pass ratecontrol seems totally off by 10% in half of the
> encode, when x264 has the best ratecontrol around).
> 
> Please discuss those results as I plan to add those "encoding
> profiles" to MEncoder XML docs.

i belive that x264 averages PSNR differently then lavc, i suggest you take
a look at the source and hack either x264 or lavc in case they differ
before comparing, allthough no doubt x264 will have better psnr then the
mpeg4 codecs ...

ahh, and no i didnt read the rest of the thread, just stumbed across this
post

PS: you could also try tinypsnr from ffmpeg cvs for comparing psnr to 
avoid any differences in the psnr calculation

[...]
-- 
Michael