Multimedia
Blogs
Forum
Affordable HD
Whitepapers
Newsletters
Events
Advertisers
Blogcast
MillimeterDistribute Expertise: Encoder Shootout
Dec 1, 2008 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer
An on-the-job comparison of sub-$1,000 streaming-media encoders for the Apple Mac.
Table 4. VP6 quality, features, and encoding speed (lower scores are better).
VP6 production
Let's shift our attention to producing On2's VP6. Here, the quality results as shown in Table 4 were extremely similar among the various encoding tools, except for screencams, where I would again avoid Compressor.
The most significant VP6-related feature is the ability to produce both VP6-E and VP6-S bit-streams. Briefly, in 2007, On2 debuted the dual-format approach. VP6-E was designed for the best possible quality and VP6-S for minimum decode complexity, allowing that format to play smoothly on low-powered computers or devices.
If you're distributing HD video, VP6-S is an option you should explore; otherwise, VP6-E should be fine. Note that if your current encoding tool doesn't support VP6-S, you're outputting in VP6-E, which is the default format. For example, Compressor, which uses Flix Exporter to produce VP6 files, can't produce VP6-S. The other tools can, including AME CS4 — a nice upgrade from CS3.
Otherwise, for SD producers who don't care about VP6-E, it comes down to encoding speed, where Qmaster allows Compressor to produce five files almost as quickly as it does one. For Squeeze and Flix Pro, you can do the same by creating multiple applications. Without similar features, both CS4 and Episode Pro are too slow for high-volume production work.
One quick caveat: Sometime in the next few months, On2 will release an upgrade to the VP6 codec, which should boost quality, though I can't say how much without testing. If you're buying a third-party encoder to produce VP6, this upgrade should filter through the On2 tools more quickly than it reaches third-party applications such as Episode Pro and Squeeze — an intangible factor that might point you toward Flix Pro.
Table 5. Windows Media Video quality (lower scores are better).
Windows Media Video 9/VC-1
There were only three contestants for Windows Media Video 9 encoding: Compressor,Squeeze, and Episode Pro. I found a big difference in output quality, as shown in Table 5. Basically, in trials with real-world video (vs. screencam captures), Squeeze was the clear leader, though its screencam output was poor.
Figure 3. The Squeeze image (right) is clearly smoother without the blockiness apparent in either the Compressor (left) or Episode Pro (middle) image.
Figure 3 contains a good example, showing a Squeeze frame that's relatively artifact-free, with obvious blocks in the Compressor and especially Episode Pro frames. Unlike with H.264, where most viewers wouldn't notice the difference, the differential with WMV 9/VC-1 is significant. So if you're encoding in Episode Pro or Compressor, you'll have to boost the data rate much higher to achieve the same quality as you would with Squeeze.
Table 6. Windows Media/VC-1 features.
In terms of feature support, Compressor, via the Flip4Mac plug-in, can produce a Silverlight player — which is a nice convenience for those distributing via Silverlight. Otherwise, the comparison again comes down to a road race. Squeeze clearly wins for both single-file and multiple-file encodes — a nice complement to its quality advantage. This makes Squeeze the optimal choice for real-world WMV videos.
Choosing the right encoder for your application involves a balance of quality, budget, performance, and features. I hope you find the foregoing data useful for your decision making.
To comment on this article, email the Digital Content Producer staff at feedback@digitalcontentproducer.com.
Continue the discussion on “Crosstalk” the Millimeter Forum.