On 9 Apr 2003 00:48:55 -0700, gzooflup@my-deja.com (Jerome Marot) wrote:

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote in message news:

<3e8cb8ce.4861558@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...

>> COMPARING Various MPEG2 Encoders...

>>

>> OK, I was curious about the quality, speed, etc. of some

>> common software used for MPEG2 encoding DV files

>> for use in producing DVDs, so I tried several, and compared

>> them on a good TV.

[...]

>Just a few words about your test:

[...]

Thanks to all for your comments - I have copied them all,

and will try to get through them as I can. BTW, as a "test",

I used a video I produced a while back that has a very

difficult scene in it for compression: a garden full of

small flowers shot with a VX2000 turned, then moved forward

through a gate in a rock wall, then turned back to look

again into the garden. Most of the rest of the video looks

pretty much the same with different encoders that we got

to work (also BTW, we do not EVER load QT on our

computers ;-), with the exceptions noted, but this difficult

scene showed considerable differences. I'm looking for a

"straight-forward" encoder that works well with little

modification of the original material, works with fairly

short render times, and works with ease of use. While I

know that better results can be had with more effort and

time, "good enough" is good enough for what I want...

Another BTW: I recently tried a Panasonic stand-alone

recorder, and liked its encoding more than that of any of

the successfully-tried software - but it failed to write

disks properly after about 4 minutes (another will

betried...).

Again, thanks to all who responded!