[MEncoder-users] new doom9 codec comparission

Corey Hickey bugfood-ml at fatooh.org
Fri Dec 9 07:56:12 CET 2005

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
>>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.


More information about the MEncoder-users mailing list