![canopus procoder 3.0 full canopus procoder 3.0 full](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xsRuEaeIWV8/XQi9EVDKgJI/AAAAAAAACEU/nAV0LpC0SyQ33kdPE_5C-ip3-TMY0XpTwCLcBGAs/s200/procoder.jpg)
#Canopus procoder 3.0 full windows
Whether encoding MPEG video for DVD production, producing Windows Media for streaming or transcoding between NTSC and PAL, ProCoder 3 makes video format conversion quick and easy.
#Canopus procoder 3.0 full software
Widely acknowledged as the leading software transcoder, ProCoder 3 features extensive input/output options, advanced filtering, batch processing and an easy-to-use interface.
![canopus procoder 3.0 full canopus procoder 3.0 full](https://www.dohoaol.com/data/images/download/software/coreldraw12.png)
For my money, TMPG wins hands down.Grass Valley ProCoder 3 software combines speed and flexibility into a streamlined video conversion tool for professionals. I want to watch the results, not spend hours tweaking and fine-tuning. Perhaps it can be tweaked to produce exceptional results, but I was more interested in the out-of-the-box experience. Given that so many people rave about CCE, I was really disappointed. ProCoder took 7 hours to encode, TMPG took only 4 hours. The kicker for me was TMPG was significantly faster. ProCoder and TMPG were nearly indistinguishable in picture quality, though in dark areas ProCoder exhibited slightly more blockiness (TMPG produced nearly none). Like you, I found CCE to be sorely lacking, it was noticeably inferior to the other two. I used a very high quality Divx 5.05 AVI file (1 hour and 42 minutes) as the source, outputting to SVCD in as high a quality as I could reasonably obtain using DVD2SVCD as the operator.
![canopus procoder 3.0 full canopus procoder 3.0 full](https://www.dohoaol.com/data/images/software/corelx5-cd4design_net.jpg)
I did a similar comparison between ProCoder, CCE SP, and TMPGEnc Plus. TMPGenc, because it's so damn cheap and CCE because is so damn fast. Even if I have to deinterlace or do something else to prepare my footage for these encoders, I'm interested. If there is a way to get ProCoder quality out of TMPGenc or CCE, I sure would like to know it. Much fewer artifacts, or the nature of the artifacts it introduces are less offensive to the eye.Īnyway, though I would share my observations. This is what I was hoping for when I first set out to make my own DVD's - ultra clean even in freeze frame. The TMPGenc encodes had fewer noticeable artifacts. To the uncritical eye (i.e my girlfriend), they look pretty similar in motion.ĬCE encodes were noisiest - more 'mosquito' noise around the edges of objects, and more block artifacts in areas with gradiated tones. The goal was to get as close is possible to the original DV source material, unaltered, onto a DVD.Īll three encoders produce good looking output. In CCE, I went in and hand tweaked the bit allocation for the lower bitrate tests (the other apps don't have this feature). All options were set for maximum possible quality. I did a few at lower bitrates, to see if it accentuated the differences I'd noticed at higher rates (it did). I did several dozen encodes with all three encoders, CBR and VBR at bitrates ranging from 8000-9500. My results? Procoder, hands down best-looking encodes, followed closely by TMPGenc, with CCE bringing up the rear. The subject is a boy's face moving slowly around a busy, rapidly moving background (camera's in the middle of a see-saw, facing out towards the subject, large depth of field). My source footage was 26 seconds of NTSC DV footage captured with a TRV900 on a bright, sunny day. I recently (a month ago?) did some tests with the latest version of ProCoder, TMPGenc, and CCE SP.