OT: Sorenson Squeeze vs. MPEG Streamclip

Just installed my Avid Media Composer package...getting ready for re-training...

Remembering a discussion I had with Jon Chappell and strypes a while ago, I ran a music video I just shot through both MPEG Streamclip (my standard end-stage compression software) and Sorenson Squeeze, because I remember one of the moderators saying that Squeeze did a better job.

I have not been able to get that result, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something in Squeeze.

I output three MP4s in H.264 codec (Apple H.264 in Squeeze) at the following specs:

1920x1080, 5000kbps, multipass, bframes (MPEG Streamclip)
960x540, 2000kbps, multipass, bframes
640x360, 1000kbps, multipass, bframes

The source files are ProRes 422, 1920x1080, 24p (23.98fps), so no de-interlacing necessary.

So my questions are:

1. Why doesn't Squeeze allow me to export in 23.98fps or 23.976fps? I tried the "1:1" fps setting in Squeeze -- which I assume would retain the frame rate of the original file -- but does this mean Squeeze can't convert source media directly to 23.98fps? Am I missing a setting?

2. I don't actually see the Squeeze files looking better than MPEG Streamclip. Granted, I couldn't use the B frames option in Squeeze; the B frames option is only available in "Advanced" mode, and going to "Advanced" mode would then preclude my setting the target kbps precisely). But Squeeze ran a five-pass multipass encoding on the file while MPEG Streamclip ran only three, I think.

The Squeeze files, at identical bitrate settings (variable, I assume), resulted in substantially smaller files -- for the 5000kbps versions, around 145MB vs 170MB out of MPEG Streamclip.

The Squeeze files seemed to get more saturation, but the MPEG Streamclip files got better contrast. Shadow areas are less milky, yet didn't lose more detail compared with the Squeeze files.

The Squeeze files got sharper titles, far cleaner edges, when looking at the simple end credits -- a non-serif font on a black banner.

But most importantly, the MPEG Streamclip files handled the Nattress Lab Dissolve I used far better. This effect is all over anything I shoot and direct, and it's always been one of my benchmarks for judging the compression, because it pixellates very easily. On the 5000kbps files, Squeeze had very problematic pixellation, while MPEG Streamclip had only moderate, barely noticeable pixellation.

Is this consistent with your experiences? Or do I just need to keep bumbling around in Squeeze and put in the time?


www.derekmok.com

I got my Avid package days ago too, so lemme check... Sigh.. Do you know that there is Squeeze 7 at an upgrade price?

It doesn't seem to be an option to use optical flow or to conform frame rates.

The codec may be better, as it uses Mainconcept's h.264 codec. (have you tried using the x264 codec for QT?) for the gamma thingy, there's the QT gamma atom which you may need to add..



www.strypesinpost.com

> Do you know that there is Squeeze 7 at an upgrade price?

That's the question, isn't it? Given that I still have Compressor and MPEG Streamclip, I don't think I'll need anything else Squeeze offers unless it does get much better results. I don't do that large an array of web deliverables. But I've been testing with the Apple H.264 codec. I'll give the Mainconcept one a whirl and see what I get.

That Videoguys Avid upgrade price was a huge boon for me.


www.derekmok.com

You can also try out the x264 plugin from here...

[www003.upp.so-net.ne.jp]

You don't really need to install the pref pane, unless you plan to pre-process your image before you encode to H.264 (eg. de-interlace, etc..). I haven't used it as much as I would have liked, because I do so little work for the web...

Here is a guide to the additional preferences in the x264 codec..

[www.digital-digest.com]



www.strypesinpost.com

Holy smoke. Massive quality difference when I switched from Apple H.264 to MainConcept H.264. Unbelievable. Even on the 1000kbps 640x360 files. Thanks for the tip, G.

(Still waiting for the 2000kbps and 5000kbps tests to finish cooking)


www.derekmok.com

Now this is interesting...do you have any idea why, on the 2000kbps version, Squeeze wouldn't allow me to use a dimension of 960x540 on the MainConcept H.264? It keeps changing the number for me to 960x544. The 1000kbps version accepted my designation of 640x360 just fine.


www.derekmok.com

Multiples of 16 for DCT compression? Full raster HD isn't usually encoded at 1920x1080 (only the Uncompressed codecs and wavelet based R3DCODE can exist at that frame size), but compressed codecs are encoded at the slightly larger frame size of 1920x1088 because DCT based codecs need multiples of 16 (the same reason NTSC has 2 frame sizes. So in practice, the 8 additional lines of pixels are hidden from the viewer.



www.strypesinpost.com

Flying right over my head... Any idea why 640x360 worked? Is it possible that it could deal with 22.5 (640/16) but not 33.75 (540/16)...?


www.derekmok.com

540 is not a multiple of 16. 544 is. That means the MainConcept encoder is not designed to cope with that kind of frame size. Use 1280x720 instead.



www.strypesinpost.com

> 22.5 (640/16)

Time to buy a new calculator, D. 640/16=40



www.strypesinpost.com

Typo. I meant to write 360/16. Squeeze accepted 640x360, but not 960x544. That was the mystery.

Finally got to do an end comparison. The MainConcept H.264 5000kbps seemed to represent the colour of the original ProRes 422 source file more than the MPEG Streamclip H.264. But it took three to four times longer to compress. Sharpness was about equal. Looks like I'll be sticking with MPEG Streamclip for a while.


www.derekmok.com

If the color is off, it probably means the gamma atom wasn't correctly written. That stuff is metadata, just like clean aperture information. But QT is quirky with the gamma atom. You can ask Graeme all about it.

Check if transitions and fast movements encode well (eg. Timelapse shot of a busy street). Wmv was horrible at it. 5000 kbs is pretty healthy for half hd size. Try sonething like 2.5kbs to 4kbs. Footage should start disintegrating at that frame size.

The time it took to render could be due to the overheads of the software (Compressor was heavy), pre-processing filters (eg. Deinterlacing or down sizing), or h.264 parameters (high vs main) or you may have more encoding passes. Mpegstream clip uses the QT encoder, so the quality would be similar to what you get from QT except that it uses a different scaling algorithm.

The main concept encoder is also used by Telestream's episode pro. So you can use it for certain mpeg/mpeg2 encoding that you can't do with Compressor. I had some of those delivery requests.. Luckily I had a few avid seats somewhere in the facility.



www.strypesinpost.com

I haven't used squeeze in a long time but I like using mpeg streamclip an or adobe media encoder to compress to mp4 for speed but I do tend to notice occasional glitches when using a self contained quicktime from FCP. Furthermore, it seems compressor gives me the best looking result. Any clues why? Granted, I'm not adroit at the advanced settings in either of those programs and am just using the youtube preset from compressor.

What kind of glitches?



www.strypesinpost.com