[Steven L. Gotz] “I would be happy with Jon’s answer, but if anyone (Tim Kolb) besides Jon and Aanarav wanted to argue this out, I would be enthralled reading the posts. “
Subtle…it’s lucky that I’m very perceptive. 🙂
I would agree that the encoding results are all very good. However, in the earliest incarnation of the Main Concept encoder, there wasn’t a multiple pass mode, or any pre-process options (de-interlacing before going into the compression process when you need to output a progressive filetype helps the efficiency of the process immensely.)…and I think the differences between encoders is most evident when you’re really jamming them for bandwidth. Most encoders can create a good quality clip when it doesn’t have to be small.
At the end of te day, ProCoder and Main Concept may be neck in neck for most quality measures…but for speed, ProCoder beats Main Concept in my experience, even with an export to a master clip…which is basically a data clone, so it’s not a transcode and it doesn’t take that much time.
Combine this with the fact that I can output all the filetypes I need in one pass in ProCoder (frequently I need WMV, MPEG, QT, you name it…), and we have a winner…
This needs to be clear…ProCoder seems to work the best in my situation…it’s not that I think that any of these other applications are somehow lacking, at least as far as I can see.
TimK
Kolb Syverson Communications
Creative Cow Host
2004, 2005 NAB Post Production Conference Premiere Pro Technical Chair
Author, “The Easy Guide to Premiere Pro” http://www.focalpress.com
“Premiere Pro Fast Track DVD Series” http://www.classondemand.net