I just finished some testing of
Nero Recode 2 (v2.2.6.17) verses
AutoMKV (v0.51) verses
AutoGK (v2.37 beta) using a DV-encoded source file.
The source file was captured using BTV Pro on a Mac via BTV's direct DV stream capture function. The incoming video was sourced from a
Canopus ADVC-500 Analog - Digital Converter box connected to a
Canon XL1 video camera via S-Video. I wasn't really evaluating audio quality (my ears aren't good enough anyway) though I did include the audio track in the encode. It came from some ceiling microphones run through a mixer and then into the Canopus encoder.
In order to use this source with AutoMKV and AutoGK I had to first convert it to an AVI file, which I did using
MPEG Streamclip (what a fantastic program that is and now it's available for Windows too). Nero Recode was able to use the DV file directly, but to ensure that I was comparing apples-to-apples I used the DV AVI file for all of the conversions. (I did ask the developer of AutoMKV to see if he can support the DV files directly and he's gonna see what he can do.)
The results were interesting! I'd never really delved into Nero Recode for more than a cursory exam. It certainly produced very high-quality results when using the AVC codec. Here's some brief observations:
Details:
Video: Apple DV, 720 x 480 (640 x 480), Millions of colors, 29.97 FPS
Audio: Stereo, 48000 kHz, PCM, 1536 kbps
Duration: 00:00:03.637 (3+ seconds) - 109 frames
Progressive source
Container:
File Type: AVI
Video: 12.4 MB
Audio: 681 KB
- The process in Nero was very user friendly, but I did find it somewhat difficult to find the more advanced options (such as configuring resizing support, profile and codec selection, and more advanced settings). These seemed to be spread out into different places and not very well explained, almost hidden from you (like they didn't want you to find them).
- AutoMKV offers plenty of options while still keeping it simple. However, the interface is certainly not as "pretty" for a novice video encoding user. There are some areas of the interface that are downright scary (though these don't need to be touched). It is quite a bit more flexible, and allows a lot more finely tuned configuration (selecting from a wide range of different filters for example) but the default options aren't really very good and nothing is very well explained. It does work quite well though and the interface is clean and clear and very simple to use (assuming you know what the different choices do).
- AutoGK is certainly the easiest of the three to use and configure. It also doesn't give very easy access to many configuration options at all. It does still allow access to some advanced options, but only through a "secret hotkey press" (which I don't like, I have to search online for it every time I need to use it). I understand that it was part of the design goal to keep it extremely simple, but a simple "advanced options" button under the regular options dialog would be better IMHO.
- AutoMKV doesn't clean up after itself as well as AutoGK or Nero. It leaves a bunch of files in the destination directory, and it isn't immediately clear which one your output file is! I would much prefer that it do like AutoGK does and confine all it's work files to a subdirectory that can be easily deleted if they aren't needed. You also have to manually specify a name for the final movie in the program's UI, rather than it defaulting to the source filename with some sort of addendum (AutoGK adds "_agk" to the end of the filename for example). Nero doesn't leave you with any work files at all (other than an optional Logfile), which I also don't prefer (though it's better than a folder full of junk you don't need hardly ever).
- AutoMKV beat Nero in speed as best I can tell (AutoMKV doesn't timestamp it's logs so I had to time it manually with a stopwatch). This could be due to profile settings, because they were difficult to match given Nero's options.
Nero encode: 1:02 (min:sec) - profile Maximum Definition - AVC, no resize, audio standard (stereo). Final output file size 2540 KB
AutoMKV encode: 0:42 (min:sec) - X264 (MP4 container), Profile CE-Highprofile.xml, no resize, audio Nero AAC stereo (qual 0.5), Convolution3d preset "movieHQ" filter. Final Output Size: 1886 KB
AutoGK encode: 0:33 (min:sec) - XviD, no resize (720 width), Audio MP3 VBR 160 kbps, Target Size: 2 MB. Final Output Size: 2048 KB
- Nero's controls of the final output size were fairly limited and somewhat cryptic. I couldn't set it to anything less than 30 MB. Nero then reported that (for an unexplained reason) the final output size would be 8 MB (if I changed profiles this number changed as well). The file it actually produced was 2540 KB. AutoMKV allows you to enter any size you want in MB. It does fairly well at reaching this target, though not as well as AutoGK (perhaps because of the codecs used being all VBR-like). I had AutoMKV set to target 2 MB and it produced a 1886 KB file. AutoGK was spot on of course.
- Both Nero and AutoMKV's MP4 files were clearly superior to the AutoGK XviD AVI file I produced. This was somewhat exaggerated by the fact that that the source footage included blinking text (which the ASP MPEG-4 codec had trouble with and it "rippled" a bit in the XviD encode). AutoGK's color fidelity was very good. There were simply more compression related artifacts in the picture though.
- It was very hard to decide which of the Nero or AutoMKV MP4 files were better final quality, though I have to give a slight nod to AutoMKV. Both were crystal clear and free of any obvious visual artifacts from the compression. Nero's color balance was a bit off though and shifted the final output a small bit "warmer" than the AutoMKV version. While this looked nice (I like warm shots), the AutoMKV file was basically indistinguishable from the source footage and therefore was "truer".
- Summary:
All-in-all I have to say that
AutoMKV is, IMHO, the winner by a
tiny margin.
Nero Recode was very good but given that the final output was shifted slightly in color, and the issues I had with configuring it, I have to go that way. AutoMKV does have a slightly steeper learning curve, but once you do it is far quicker to set up and more powerful. The fact that it was slightly faster than Nero was just a bonus as far as I'm concerned, and could be a result of slightly mismatched encoding profiles (I didn't use AutoMKV's Max Quality profiles as they aren't recommended due to being extremely slow and not much better at all in quality). Plus, the 300 pound gorilla is that Nero Recode is a commercial product and is not free. AutoGK is open source and free. The developer is also very active and responsive to requests.
If you want to be able to encode to MPEG-4 AVC and you want a simple click-click-go encoder, either of the two would be appropriate. Nero will take less time to figure out initially, but might take more time to get good quality out of. AutoMKV will definitely take more time to figure out, but will likely give more flexibility and slightly better results in the end.
Author
Topic: MPEG4 quality worse in MC than WMP (Read 5546 times)