[MEncoder-users] new doom9 codec comparission

[Corey Hickey]

Rich Felker wrote:
> 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?

Just like I had said before:

---
Trouble is, the postprocessing eliminates most of the ringing artifacts
anyway, so the benefit of qns is masked. The difference is still
visible, but so subtle that I doubt anyone would notice unless they
already knew what to look for and where to find it.
---

PSNR dropped from 42.92 to 42.86. Not that it means anything.

-Corey