|
Current Version of Procoder2?
|
|
|
bauerv15
Junior Member
|
12. July 2006 @ 06:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
What is it guys? Thx in advance...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
12. July 2006 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
I don't know if I understand your question????....but Procoder2 is an encoder much like CCE Basic & SP. Used with DVD Rebuilder, you can reduce a large file to fit onto a DVD-5 or 9.
|
|
bauerv15
Junior Member
|
12. July 2006 @ 18:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes i know that :P i mean what is the current release? ex: 2.04 ...something ...understand?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. August 2006 @ 10:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
One thing to note many many feel that Procoder 1.5 produces better output.
|
Senior Member
|
15. August 2006 @ 05:31 |
Link to this message
|
That's interesting. I didn't have 1.5 very long before I got 2.0, and hardly used it to get an opinion. I've found that Procoder 2.0 does better than CCE when it comes to things like television shows, or videotape. Is there any area where 1.5 is considered to be the best?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. August 2006 @ 06:51 |
Link to this message
|
I have ProCoder2 and the output is excellent, better than CCE in my opinion on high compression. Where can I find out why 1.5 is supposedly better?
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
15. August 2006 @ 07:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. August 2006 @ 08:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for the comparison I will have to read it all, just looked at the first couple of pages. I would have liked to see just what the original source looked like, to compare to that. However, it still comes down to what the eye can see and everyone will not always agree on what looks good on each set.
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
15. August 2006 @ 08:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I would have liked to see just what the original source looked like, to compare to that.
My thoughts exactly, it would of been great, if the person added the original source. How else are we suppose to know what encoder came the closest to the original.
You can not go by the tests done there because there is no original source to compare them to.
I am very happy with Pro2 :D
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. August 2006 @ 08:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks, for agreeing on the lack of original source, I can see the comparisons with each other but with no original it is hard to tell what is the best. What looks bad may in actuality be the closest :)
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
15. August 2006 @ 08:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
After looking at the whole thread there is only 1 test without the original source.
I feel like a right Plonker, LOL :O
I blame my poor eyesight, hahaha
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. August 2006 @ 08:55
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. August 2006 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
Well those folks ain't no amateurs, I think that their conclusions should not be so readily dismissed. They are talking about DV sources.
He does provide the clip he used.
>>>>
here is just a few frames of that sequence in a small dv file if you want to run your own tests.
right click and save as (4.5 meg compressed - rar file):
http://tinyurl.com/4sdxb
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
15. August 2006 @ 11:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
MysticE,
Thanks for the file. I will do some testing of my own when I have time and see how how they compare, cheers.
I will also have an indepth look at all the frames that were taken on that site, thanks again :)
|
