![]() Another point that bothers me is the "mysterious" crashes, which it has, depending on the output format to choose, the program simply closes without further explanation. However, it is a program for advanced users, who are already used to more advanced compression configurations, so anyone who is an atypical user may feel confused when configuring an output format. I like XMedia Recode because it is one of the few software that works with external codecs that are extremely frequent as codec updates, in addition to offering a multitude of formats. I will be happily using XMedia Recode for quite a few of my encoding jobs going forwards. If the points above were addressed in a future update, it would be a solid 10 from me. That said, overall I have found this a brilliant tool for a big, big job, with a very user friendly interface and learning curve. The only things holding me back from giving XMedia Recode a top rating are as follows:Ī) The GPU accelerated encoding isn't the fastest out there.ī) It doesn't always accurately read the contents of a DVD or BD folder.Ĭ) The inability to passthrough a PGS subtitle track is a pain, meaning any BD encodes need a run through MKV ToolNix to add the subs back in from the original master file. I wanted to retain the interlacing as I prefer to let the playback device do the de-interlacing, and this software makes it a breeze to do so.Īdditionally, I had other material where I only wanted to convert the audio, due to PCM on a mono video soundtrack from the 80's being overkill to say the least, so the option to copy/passthrough the video track was an added bonus. you the user have to set it up correctly for best results.I've been using XMedia Recode to back up tons of old video material which is interlaced. Thus, you'll get poorer quality output in the case that it doesn't need done. So if you turn on de-interlace, every frame is de-interlaced regardless of whether it needs it or not. As far as I know, they don't have interlace detection filtering. You won't get better quality as the filters protect against quality loss to begin with. If you know your sources are defiantly progressive, you can just turn the 2 filters off and gain the speed back. We've decided that the performance hit is worth it as users then don't have to understand what this is. If you don't de-interlace a interlaced source, you'll get interlacing artefacts in the output which are nasty. ![]() If it does need de-interlaced then it's a moot point. ![]() If it doesn't need de-interlaced, it won't do anything. Interlace detection looks at your source and decides whether it needs de-interlaced or not. (That said that's with one sample file on one sample system but in general, given both apps use the same underlying encoder and likely same decoder, it should be within a pretty small gap) In my own testing HandBrake win's out but is more often than not within a margin of error or very slightly faster. Speeds in HandBrake vs xMedia, like of like on settings, should be very similar. Note, I don't believe xMedia has those same filters available so you'd probably have to switch to yadif on both sides to have equivalence. The "Fast 480p30" preset in HandBrake is essentially Quality RF 20, x264, fast preset, 3.1 with Interlace Detection and Decomb turned on and a hard cap of 480p resolution at 30fps Turn off Interlace detection and Decomb on the filters tab and you'll probably find any difference disappears all other settings equals. The reason HandBrake is likely running slower is that there are a 2 filters that are default on which won't be in xMedia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |