[MEncoder-users] new doom9 codec comparission

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:55:28PM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
> > The encode still isn't finished, but I've viewed several parts already
> > and my conclusion is that it just isn't worth it for this comparison. I
> > still like qns=2, I'll keep using it myself, and I will still recommend
> > it in general when speed isn't much of an issue. Since speed is a factor
> > in Doom9's evaluation, though, I have to leave it out for now. qns=1 is
> > barely faster, so I don't think it's an acceptable compromise either.
> > 
> > I'll let the encode finish some time tonight and report the results for
> > posterity.
> 
> Here are the results for adding qns to the second pass.
> 
> without qns: 184m54.632s
> with qns=2:  401m13.102s

Any comments on relative quality?

Rich