Where The Rubber Meets The Road: 2010 Encoder Comparison

H.264 Encoding Speed
I ran the same tests to compare H.264 encoding speed, but for Compressor, I ran the tests with Qmaster enabled and disabled. Note that while I could run multiple instances of Squeeze 5 and produce H.264 files simultaneously, when I opened multiple instances of Squeeze 6 on the Mac, the H.264-related templates and presets were not available, slowing H.264 performance compared to Squeeze 5 considerably. That’s why there’s an "N/A" in this line for Squeeze 6.

Here are a couple of additional points: Note that I tested Squeeze using MainConcept’s multipass encoding, which is about 50% slower than two-pass encoding, which is also an option. Since the quality difference between the two encoding modes is noticeable, I went with the higher-quality option. All other encoders used two-pass encoding.

In terms of encoding time, Adobe seems to have found a magic bullet, encoding so fast that even without the benefit of parallel encoding or the ability to open multiple instances, it was the fastest encoder to eight complete files. Combine that with excellent quality and you’ve got a great H.264 encoding tool.

You have to like Compressor’s Qmaster-fueled performance. But the comparatively poor quality sours the overall outlook. As mentioned, Squeeze 6 is a step backward in terms of speed; since the quality is similar to version 5, H.264 producers who don’t need the benefit of Squeeze 6’s expanded feature set should be happier with the older version. Again, Episode’s inability to encode in parallel drops it to fourth place overall, just a few minutes ahead of Squeeze 6.

On my HP Z800 Windows test bed, I discovered that multiple instances of Squeeze 6 could encode to H.264, so encoding times didn’t suffer as much as on the Mac. Still, Adobe was the clear performance leader, followed by Squeeze 5 and 6, then Expression Encoder, and Episode. In the enterprise encoding category (Table 8), Episode Engine was again faster than Carbon Coder, though Rhozet had the quality advantage.

Other H.264-Related Considerations
Those choosing H.264 encoding tools should consider several additional factors. First, if your encoding needs are very specific, you may benefit from a tool that really lets you fine-tune your H.264 parameters, such as Carbon Coder. For example, according to Joe Inzerillo, who oversees the encoding of all Major League Baseball games, he uses different encoding settings for day and night games, as well as for different camera positions. For the record, MLB encodes all the games live and couldn’t use any of the encoders discussed here. But the principle is the same.

If you’re producing video that uses the same background over and over (for example, on a daily or weekly show) or similar content in each show (such as in cartoons or animation), you may discover some combination of encoding settings that delivers exceptionally high-quality results. Tools such as Squeeze, Episode, Adobe Media Encoder, and Expression Encoder don’t give you this level of granularity. Conversely, if you’re encoding a broad range of diverse content without any consistent patterns, you probably don’t need this level of control.

Second, note that Expression Encoder has a minimum audio bitrate of 96Kbps. If you typically produce at lower rates, as you should for most speech-based content, this could be an irritating negative.

Windows Media Encoding
In testing Windows Media Video encoding tools, there were significant quality and performance differences, which are the two most important variables. For example, in all Episode versions, Mac, Windows, and Engine, Telestream tended to drop frames during extremely high-motion sequences, and single-frame quality was slightly lower than most other encoders, though neither of these factors would likely matter unless you’re encoding high-motion video to the absolute lowest possible data rates.

In addition, Squeeze 6 did produce slightly higher quality than Squeeze 5. So if you’re a Windows Media producer sitting on the fence about the Squeeze 6 upgrade, you’ll probably find it worth your while. Otherwise, Windows Media quality is relatively even among all other contenders, including Microsoft’s own Expression Encoder.

This again makes the critical focus encoding speed. On the Mac, there are really only two options (since Sorenson is no longer selling Squeeze 5). Between Squeeze 6 and Episode Pro, the Sorenson product offers much faster single- and multiple-file encoding and slightly better quality. Note that when I tried to encode to WMV format with multiple instances of Squeeze 5, all instances crashed—a problem that I didn’t experience with Squeeze 6.

While running on Windows, Squeeze 6 encoded Windows Media files in parallel as efficiently as multiple instances—I sure wish Sorenson would encode H.264 files in parallel to save users the trouble of opening multiple instances. Otherwise, Expression Encoder was the next-best, currently selling option, trailed by Adobe Media Encoder, with Episode considerably behind.

In the Enterprise Encoding market, Episode was much slower than Carbon Coder with lower quality, again giving WMV producers an easy decision.

A quick note about Windows Media "tweaks" or advanced encoding parameters like those shown in Figure 4: As with advanced H.264 encoding options, these may provide some benefit with very specific types of footage. But in my general-purpose test file, I was unable to find a combination that boosted quality above the default, highest-quality settings. If you have specific, idiosyncratic content to encode, you should consider downloading the trial version of Expression Encoder to see if you can find a set of parameters that significantly improve encoded quality.

If you do, you can buy the full version of Expression Encoder, or you can use Rhozet Carbon Coder, which also offers a full set of Windows Media tweaks. None of the other programs reviewed here go beyond the encoding basics.

Overall, if you’re producing on the Mac, Squeeze 6 is your best sub-$1,000 option. In Windows, Adobe Media Encoder provides good quality and sufficient throughput for low-volume operations. Consider Expression Encoder for tweaking and Squeeze 6 for the most efficient single- or multiple-file encoding. In the enterprise encoding space, Carbon Coder is clearly the best option.

Again, quality and performance are just two features to consider when choosing your encoding tool, though they are very important features. Hopefully, this summary will at least help point you in the right direction when it comes to choosing your next encoding tool.