Mainconcept VS TMPGEnc

[Brandon Wood]

I am curious how many of you prefer to render to NTSC DV Mpeg 2 thru Mainconcept in Vegas vs. using TMPGEnc (or possibly another encoder) to render your .avi files.

I've used TMPGEnc for quite a while and love the features and the clarity I see after the encode. Lately I've rendered of few of my finished Vegas projects down with the Mainconcept codec for convenience (in the dropdown box in Vegas) and they look almost "foggy" and dull looking compared to the encodes I've done thru TMPGEnc.

Just wondered about any one elses experience with this...I want to make sure my eyes aren't playing tricks on me.

[Rob Lohman]

The list of some friends and myself seems to go something like this (in order of quality, best at the top):

1. Canopus ProCoder

2. TMPGEnc / CCE (expensive)

3. MainConcept (Sony Vegas / DVD Architect and Adobe Premiere / Encore)

[Sheila Ward]

I switched from MainConcept (Adobe Premiere and stand alone version) to TMPGEnc. It seems there was always some little quality glitch I was dealing with using MainConcept. The quality is much better with TMPGEnc and I haven't had to deal with quirky glitches.

[Dan Euritt]

if i were you i'd make sure that you are using the mainconcept encoder to it's fullest before spending $$$.

sooo many people can think of nothing but encoding speed, and if you read the premiere boards, you'll see that they have pushed the mainconcept people hard in that direction, i.e., the creation of presets that encoder faster with no visual artifacting.

you need to make darn sure that you know how to use the encoder before going any further... are you using two-pass at the best quality setting? are you using vbr, with the max settings at 8mbps, and the average at the target bitrate?

[Tony Rockliff]

With the same settings on all 3 (2-pass VBR, HQ, optimum bit-rates etc.) I consistently get the best results in this order:

1) Procoder
2) TMPGEnc (very close to Procoder - do need to use 601 filter for DV)
3) MainConcept (can be good depending on the source but not usually as good as Procoder and TMPGEnc).

Tony

[John Arnold]

With regard to a few posts from people who have used TMPGenc.
I used to use this excellent encoder before I had a DVD burner when I used to encode my videos to SVCD format (quality somewhere betweem VHS and DVD). I used to try various seetings and was very happy with the results.
I have NOT been able to successfully encode (AVI) to DVD. I can't remember the exact problem but think it was a jumpy image even though I used the default settings. Can someone let me know what settings they used so that I can try again.

[Peter Jefferson]

I used to be all for the main concept encoder until i got my 8ms 17' Mitshubishi LCD panels..
I ran two instances of the same clip (using media player) one using Procoder and the other using Main concept and CLEARLY the canopus effort was much much MUCH CLEANER.

It was also a little brighter (maybe half a stop bright than MC, but it was far more accurate to the original)
It was however slightly soft.. it was nowhere near as sharp as MC, but i prefer a cleaner look (after seeing it liek this, i IMMEDIATELY jumped ship...)

on a crt monitor, the difference is virtually undetectable... run it through LCDs at full screen and you WILL notice the difference..

[Matt Brabender]

I agree
I ran some back to back tests with procoder and main concept and procoders wins (for my eyes)
the only disadvantage is main concept is the only one that plugs into vegas so if you have something like a 2 hour film to render for dvd, then it's either frame serve or double up on render times - first to avi then to mpeg2

[Tony Rockliff]

Yes, when doing a 1.5-2 hr draft DVD for clients to check edits etc., I use the MC encoder in Vegas, 1-pass at Q15 because it's fast and I let them know that it is draft quality and that the final will look much better.

For the final I frameserve to Procoder and do 2-pass. Frameserving is very quick and easy to do and I don't find any disadvantages by doing it, only advantages (no extra render so no quality loss or extra time, no hard drive space needed etc.).

[Matt Brabender]

I heard there is some quality loss with frame serving, but then that may depend on the frame server. But I really don't know that as this is getting into muddy waters for me.

[David Ennis]

Has anyone had occasion to try TMPGEnc's eXtended DVD encoding?

[Tony Rockliff]

I've never seen any quality loss when using debugmode's frameserver. Quite the contrary, DVDs created by frameserving from Vegas to Procoder Express or TMPGEnc XP3 always look better than when I use the internal MC encoder even at optimum settings.

[Matt Brabender]

Tony, that's excellent info - thankyou :)

[Anhar Miah]

man I was a TMPgenc man for years, but now I mainly use Mainconcept (standalone) and believe me i've tried just about every setting in TMPgenc so I know my way round it and too be honest Mainconcept does keep the same quality (but much faster i.e realtime), true MC doesnt have as many nice additional features such as CC. sharping and many other filters, but for me MC is my workhorse (PS i've used CCE, it makes the worst VCD) , anyho MC does have a lot of advanced settings try changing them, play with them you would be surprised!

Anyway hopes this doesnt turn into my X is better than your X !!
what ever works for you works for you!



Anhar Hussain Miah

[Brandon Wood]

I'm coming to that conclusion that both have nice features...of course, I am beginning to agree with some of the earlier posts...I am really liking Procoder better than any of the others.