Logo Logo
Qualität der verfügbaren H.264-Encoder

Quality of available H.264 Encoder

Frage von beiti:
Juli 2009

As the DIY of DVDs was affordable, there was much discussion about the quality of the MPEG2 encoder. Not to be used whatever the software company was then integrated into their editing software, seriously.

How is it today with the H.264 encoders? The H.264 format need not only good for Blu-rays, but synonymous for high quality Flash video and other purposes.

I have lately a little experimenting with the free x264 and am not so enthusiastic. The significant jump in quality to MPEG2 at least, is still missing, however, may be synonymous, that I am in the variety of settings, not coping with life.

What (; affordable) software is recommended because today, if you want to encode H.264 videos for the net, for a variety of HD players and medium term synonymous for Blu-ray?
Is there somewhere quality comparisons, or is the subject of H.264 still too young?

Antwort von DeeZiD:

With MeGUI I (; Avisynth, X264, etc. front end) very good experience.
This program uses very high quality scaler, deinterlacer and presets (, uA for Blu-ray). The resulting mp4 files can be created as prima Tsmuxer with Blu-ray to create compatible brennnen and then with Nero 2.5 in UTF format. :)

X264 already delivers less than 10Mbit excellent 1080p quality. For the Internet can be (good looking 720p files, create play Flash video) with just 2Mbit. Experiments with the times Mpeg2;)

Also not bad is Mpeg-Streamclip, with a simply holding down the interface and still usable quality - based on Quicktime.

Gruß Dennis

Antwort von WoWu:

Deti @
.... synonymous not forget that for example the commercial products on BR FRExt use the tools that are in the consumer environment, have hardly been found on such. The VSoft encoder can do that
So it is less sH264 as s.den Profiles, the encoder is currently (and only) support, and of course that is primarily what gets AVCHD as the consumer products offered .... And with the basic profiles, only the simplest thing you can offer H.264, MPEG2 is being exhausted to s.seine upper performance limits.
It also compares basic profiles with high-profile ... somehow you have the lag ..
What's more, that does not support x.264 some tools that are offered in H.264 ... So an unlikely pair.
But compared with the corresponding H.264 times MPEG2 profiles ... then it looks even more clearly.

Antwort von deti:

@ WoWu: why Deti @?


Antwort von WoWu:

Jau, Deti, you are right ...
... it was simply read too volatile ... Sorry 'bout it.
The Threat of course, is "beiti.
But still a good reason to send you best wishes to ...

Antwort von newsart:

The thread is interesting, the important question. But I only understand "station".

Can one of the experts might recapitulate for "Dummies" how exactly the recommended hot Programs, where she gets (; link), if you are on Win or Mac or both work and what do they cost?

For only when we understand the answers to the most synonymous very valid question, indeed, what brings Threa. And I assume that I am not alone with my ignorance.

In this context, I would be interested in a reasonable time workflow to (from XDCAM EX files in 1080/50p with the editing system EDIUS 5:11 and possibly a format converter sensible Internet video; get flv) with customer-defined sizes and data rates. That I manage so far only over many detours with a high quality loss.

Thx a lot! Carsten

Antwort von beiti:

"DeeZiD" wrote:
With MeGUI I (; Avisynth, X264, etc. front end) very good experience.
MeGUI I have now looked at me, and it looks interesting in any case. Unfortunately, it seems a bit more training and experience needed, so that I could not durchtesten on the fly.

"WoWu" wrote:
synonymous not forget that for example the commercial products on BR FRExt use the tools that are in the consumer environment, have hardly been found on such.
Where is the line between consumer and professional is, or how do I know what drinsteckt in the different products?

Among the "affordable" programs with H.264 support come to mind, for example, Edius Neo 2 and ProCoder 3rd Do we know how good or bad are they?
Quicktime 7 and Nero 9 are indeed synonymous sometimes recommended for H.264 encoding. Is that because they can at all, or because the result is actually good?

Especially with ProCoder 3 occurs to me that with improved and accelerated MPEG2 encoding is advertised as AVCHD / H.264 just another point in the feature's list.

But compared with the corresponding H.264 times MPEG2 profiles ... then it looks even more clearly.
How and where can I compare it?

Antwort von RickyMartini:

Premiere Pro CS4 "H.264 delivers excellent results. So Flash-generated clips look very neat.

Antwort von DeeZiD:

"RickyMartini" wrote:
Premiere Pro CS4 "H.264 delivers excellent results. So Flash-generated clips look very neat.

I now know only After Effects CS3, and at least the scaler is cruel. Stairs and softness without end.
Canopus Procoder shows exactly the same problem.
The scaler provides artifaktreiche detail but poor images while the rest of the encoder s.Details completely wegbügelt. : (;

Excellent results I achieve my Avisynth + HCEnc (; By EX1 1080p to 576p anamorphic DVD).

For outstanding H264 in MP4 container for Flash video playback, I recommend MeGUI (; Avisynth frontend) + X264.

Both the Free (; usually even open source) solutions affordable to ordinary people put their commercial counterparts loose in his pocket ...

Once again, here at dvinfo an example:
(and while with Virtualdub instead Avisynth to scale, quality is the same)

Gruß Dennis

Antwort von WoWu:

Somehow, however, be here with all possible filter encoding durcheinender thrown. A scaler and its quality has absolutely nothing to do with the encoding to. So when comparing the different programs are qualities together, it may be, of course, relate only to the encoding and encoding if (; as here) are compared, at least the best available tools and in different programs, the quality of implementation.
Moreover, synonymous, the question naturally arises whether a fast (is; speed increase can look like this as a cue) is really better than the encoding. Certainly a question of entitlement.
I personally mean by quality of the pure image quality and rendering speed is not the ... synonymous, and not any advantages or disadvantages in the Scalierung of formats.

@ Beiti
(; sorry that I confused the earlier)
Where is the line between consumer and professional is, or how do I know what drinsteckt in the different products?

The limit is initially in the fact that the consumer almost nothing else is available, as the products that you can buy as AVCHD.
You can recognize it because it once the "Properties" reads the files and it is there for information regarding profiles and levels can find .. synonymous how much I-slices are used in the GoP .. synonymous, and the length of the GoP .. Such properties often synonymous give information about other tools that are part of the implementation.
(; Example: In the profiles you will find information such as: 66, 77, 88, etc. Behind this there are the following profile: 66 = Basebline, 77 = Main, 88 extended: FRExt profile would be: 100 = High, 110 = High 10, 122 = High 4:2:2, 244 = High 4:4:4, 44 = CAVLC 4:4:4 Intra).
If we compare the now with the one provided by the default profile and level, and the possibilities within the tool, it will be seen that the AVCHD files are s. below the end of the scale, and just entering the MPEG4 / AVC-H is .264.
Sure there's hanging NLE Manufacturer einwenig s.Tropf the hardware industry, because higher profiles and levels, and I generate more slices of course synonymous different requirements s.The HW.

How and where can I compare it?

First, one can assume that MPEG2 has reached the "end of the flagpole."
The features of the individual coding can therefore firstly to provide in order to determine which profiles are comparable. All details can be found in the standards.
Taking into account now, which, as described above, the currently available profiles already exist, we find that you're just getting s.Anfang stands and you really comparing apples with pears, because the corresponding profiles in consumer devices, not yet are implemented.

Hence my objection that can be compared with each other codecs though, but a comparison to MPEG2 always give a distorted picture is because we compare with the minimum of AVC with the maximum values of MPEG2.

Therefore, comparing synonymous my objection that one (commercial DVDs;) films is very difficult with my own material can, just because they have been made with other tools within the standard that will reach the consumer presumably until much later (and if at all) .

Antwort von Bruno Peter:

Consequently, the AVCHD cameras are still in a lopsided!

I have always said / written, but the people are on hold this memory and are otherwise quite blind.
In the higher quality and priced to rule "is still the HDV cameras if you look at the lists of test magazines.

Antwort von WoWu:

Unfortunately, this is such a synonymous Comparison, which can not be as easy, because you obviously synonymous with respect to the data rate can not compare apples and pears.
In these simple terms, I would not therefore want to bring, because of course not neglecting the data rate and also the tape is still the limiting factor in terms of signal to noise ratio.
The card can achieve a better noise ratio.
In this sense, despite the little things (and only) entry level is still the front nose slightly over MPEG2.
Press (; outlier rule. There are good and bad HDV Device AVC Device).
And both 1080 format, in accordance with HDV and AVCHD, because of the pixel shape is not the HDTV specifications.
But if we compare the two formats with identical data rates, suggests the pendulum too AVC. With the Main Profile is not even the 4x4 macro is supported, but, just as in MPEG2, the 8x8.
But you are right, I would if I were to make 1080) while my camera still synonymous retained until there is in AVC (; except 720) a true HD format and a better profile would be offered, for the benefit of AVC is used in AVCHD products are truly not apply.
The ACV is not a problem, but one of the Manufacturer that they wish to pay their customers on several occasions and once starting with the worst level.
(; And what of all the "tests" believe that You already know).

Antworten zu ähnlichen Fragen:
Vidiu Teradek X: Kompakter Streaming H.264-Encoder
RED Scarlet-W ProRes Quality
MSU Video Quality Measurement Tool
H.264 codec
h.264 Bitrate
H.264 für Linux
HEVC vs. H.264 Dateigröße
h.264 or mpeg 4 or 263
PP2020 - h.264 Export
H.264 TV Aufnahmen eindampfen
H.264 ruckelt bei Wiedergabe
Umrechnungsfaktor Bitrate MPEG2 -> H.264?
H.264 --> als DVD brennen
Edius 9.4 keine H.264 400Mbit/s.
Welche sinnvolle H.264 DirectShow-Komponente?
DavinciResolve H.265/264 NVIDIA allgemeineFragen
h.265 statt h.264 - Lohnt es sich?
H.264 / H265 Codec in Da Vinci Resolve
MPEG-4 H.264 mit einer DVB-C Karte
Seltsame Bildfehler im unteren Drittel bei H.264
Arbeiten mit AVC/H.264 Dateien (MPEG-4)
DVD (.vob) in H.264 rekodieren - nur womit?
Externer Rekorder für 4K H.264/265 10Bit?
Warum ist h.265 "heller" als h.264?
warum ruckeln Schwenks/Zooms bei H.264-Transportstreams?
AJA HELO Plus: Professionelles H.264 Recording und duales Streaming

weitere Themen:

Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
After effects
Apple Final Cut Pro
Avid Media Composer
Final Cut
MAGIX video deLuxe
Pinnacle Studio