AutoQmatEnc question

[hank315]

To test the speed of some encoders using DVD-RB with "multiple encoder processes" I tested CCE, Procoder, QuEnc and HC, see http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...400#post970400

I got a request to add AutoQmatEnc to the list, with and without Qmatopt.
The outcome was surprising, not regarding speed but the size of the final DVD.

AutoQmatEnc without Qmatopt: final size: 7.38 GB
AutoQmatEnc with Qmatopt: final size: 4.29 GB
Both were 2 pass, the encode without Qmatopt didn't respect max. bitrate or VBV.

I'm not a AutoQmatEnc expert, maybe one of the AutoQmatEnc gurus here can help and explain what went wrong.

[techreactor]

Strange, I have never seen so much of size difference, which version of AQM were you using ??.

Ideally 4 passes should be configured for AQMenc under DVD-RB, it will use as many as required within the limit of 4 passes.

I will ask SAPSTAR to look into this as well.

[danpos]

@hank315

Not surprise for me since Jérôme ("SAPSTAR") already had said many times ago that the rate control and others MPEG2 constraints were tweaked with focus on QMatOp usage. He there was said that would go disable the usage of custom matrices since that development focus would stay on QMatOp engine as the basis of all AQE tweaks. He also said that to use AQE without QMatOp was pointless since there are several others libavcodec based encoders that done the work with custom matrices (QuEnc, Mencoder, etc).

Regards,

[hank315]

Version used is 0.33, I will run it again (with and without Qmatopt) with 4 pass setting in DVD-RB.

[BR7]

@ Hank
You may want to give Beta Version 0.34.0.2 a try

[hank315]

New encodes with DVD-RB - AutoQmatEnc using 4 pass gave far better results,

AutoQmatEnc without Qmatopt: final size: 4.32 GB
AutoQmatEnc with Qmatopt: final size: 4.31 GB

Thanks for the advice

[techreactor]

For people who are wondering whats this about, see this post from hank on speed tests of various encoders/transcoder and their output sizes.

Rejig is lightning fast on the speeds, I wonder about the quality.

[jdobbs]

ReJig's quality is similar to most other transcoders... I don't think it does as well as Shrink or Nero Recode, though. It's probably in need of a tune up, as it hasn't been updated in a long time.

[UncasMS]

Rejig is lightning fast on the speeds, I wonder about the quality.

i have compared rejig to other encoder/transcoder ages ago:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=316333&postcount=25

click at the top right to see the whole thread

[techreactor]

I had asked the rejig quality question to Dragongodz and he responded here. And he also mentioned that he will look onto an update on rejig once he gets over with Quenc and gets more time.