Hello everybody, I'm Looking for a suitable codec for live video recording. My requirements of the codec are as follows, * Live recording of 640 x 480 video * The compressed avi file should have a better quality than MPEG4 codec * The compressed file size should be lesser that 1 GB when recorded for 1 Hour * Delayless preview and capturing of video We have tried many codecs (such as DivX, PicVideo , MJPEG etc) and we found each one have a drawback. Will any of the codec meet all my requirements
I'm afraid your criteria is not very realistic. Particularly the 1gb file size limit. I've captured using a Divx variable bitrate of around 3000kbps which resulted with a file size of around 1.3gb and I was relatively pleased with the results. I still prefer mpeg-2 though. As an example, I capture TV programs using a bitrate of 7000kbps(around 3gb per hour) with a resolution of 352x480 and it looks damned near as good as the original broadcast. You either save space and sacrifice quality or preserve quality and sacrifice space. You can't have it both ways. Not yet anyway.
Hi teegee420 , Thank you for your prompt reply Actually we are working in Medical Area, where quality is very important. So i couldnot sacrifice that one. I've an idea sir. We are watching VCD's in our computers, they are in the format ".DAT" . The size is 600 MB for 45 minutes. And the quality is also good to watch. Is their any codec to VCD format (.DAT) . Thank you sir
VCD isn't anywhere near the quality of MPEG4, and the resolution is only 352x240. The problem you're going to run into is that you're not going to get high quality and small filesizes in a single pass encode, regardless of the type of compression you're using. If you need it encoded in realtime you're going to have to choose between quality and size.
Well I'll be damned. Here I thought by quality you meant something as good as a DVD! If I had known you're satisfied with VCD quality I would have recommended it from the start. VCD's contain mpeg-1 video that have a bitrate of 1150kbps. A .dat file can be as large as 795mb(and still fit on a 700mb 80 minute cd) and contain no more than 80 minutes of video. I'm assuming you have a capture device(or DV camera) of some kind to record your video, correct? You will not end up with a good looking video if you capture straight to mpeg-1. In order to get the best quality possible you will need to capture using as little compression as you and your hard drive can tollerate. If I am making a VCD of my own original content I'll use mpeg-2 settings like those I described in my first post and then use a software encoder like TMPGEnc to create a VCD mpeg. Once the conversion is finished I can then delete the considerably larger captured file. I suggest you learn as much as you can about your capture device and what it is capable of. If you should have any more questions, feel free to ask.
Hi vurbal & teegee420 Sir, i need to discuss with you thro chat. I'm available now online. I have yahoo and msn id my id's are fermisoft@yahoo.co.in fermisoft@hotmail.com Can u come online now . I will eloborate my requirements and the problems we are facing
have you concidered a hardware mpeg encoder card, with mose video capture cards the encoding is done via software, whereas with some of the more expensive models, the mpeg1/2 encoding is done in real time via hardware, i believe certain models of the winTV haupauge line feature real time hardware encoding, and are not all that expensive (about $200 us)
I tried with Pinnacle and DLink cards. Both are mpeg hardware encoders. But i didn't see any difference in software and hardware decoders. Any one know about the VCD codec.?
VCD isn't a codec, it's a format designed for standalone players and it uses MPEG-1 encoding. The bottom line is that you're not going to get the combination of quality, size, and one pass encoding you want without a good hardware encoder. You might be able to do it with a $500 Canopus MPEG-2 encoder card, although I don't think it will do exactly what you want since you're not talking about a standard TV resolution. You would probably need to encode at either 352x480 or 720x480.
I respectfully disagree with the notion that a hardware encoder is required. I own an ATI All-In-Wonder card and I get excellent results every time even though it also uses software to encode on the fly. This isn't just my assessment either. I know of video professionals that use ATI cards as well. Now maybe all capture card/software encoder combinations are not created equal, but a blanket generalization that they are all vastly inferior to hardware encoders simply isn't true.
Which is why I didn't make that statement. I was talking about the specific requirements mentioned for this question, which was not just high quality, but also high compression. I haven't used an ATI to capture with and wouldn't make assumptions about it. How big would a 640x480 high quality 1hr capture from that card be? To be more precise about my original statement, I'm reasonably sure there aren't any MPEG capture programs that will give you high enough quality and low enough bitrates to meet these requirements. If the capture program you're talking about will do this you should have recommended it in the first place. I'm also doubtful that there is a capture card that will do it either, unless you're talking about a $3000 MPEG-4 card (and then I still wouldn't be sure about the quality without seeing it).
Your comments implied that a software capture encoder wsan't up for this particular task, which was the basis for my previous post. I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, friend. That aside, I am firmly of the opinion that "high quality" and "high compression" make horrible bedfellows. There can be a happy medium between the two, but sacrifices of each must be made. If I wanted a high quality 640x480 capture I wouldn't use any less than 8,000kbps(mpeg-2 bitrate). That would amount to about 3.5gb per hour. My card allows me to go up to 20mbps but I have yet to try it. What would be the point? Might as well use uncompressed AVI. For the record, I would gladly choose a hardware encoder over software if money were not an option. However considering that I only paid $120 for my ATI card, it's impossible for me to justify the cost of a considerably more expensive hardware encoder. From what I have read, the only card that beats an ATI capture card is a $1,000 Matrox card. And even the difference there is moderate at best. From what I've surmised, one of the only significant advantages of hardware encoders is there being less of a chance of dropped frames due to the fact that they're not dependant on overall system performance such as CPU speed. It's not my intention to debate this topic to death so I don't really have much else to say on the matter. I do appreciate your comments and I enjoy reading those from yourself and the other members here. That's why I come to forums like these, to engage in a friendly exchange of ideas. Regards
I apologize for coming off a little pissy. That's just the mood I was in this morning. And you're not going to get any argument from me that software encoders can be high quality because I use CCE on a regular basis and there may not be any encoder, software or hardware, that will give you the same level of quality.
