What’s Cool: Broad HTML5 capabilities support for type 608 and 708 closed captions pre-roll and post-roll function enables assembly of multiple videos with common splash and end credits review and approve feature is much faster than previous version enhanced MXF color space plays well with popular NLEs like Adobe Premiere Pro. Target Applications: Video pros of every stripe will find Squeeze 9 indispensable for transcoding projects from a range of camera and other codecs like AVCHD, XDCAM, and ProRes to web- and mobile device-friendly formats like H.264 and MPEG-4. Summary: With broad HTML5 support, Squeeze 9 is a must-have tool for preparing video for the web.
#SORENSON SQUEEZE 10 STANDARD VS PRO COMPARISON PROFESSIONAL#
Tool is underpowered for high-end professional applications. Presets are numerous, well organized, and clearly defined. Other comments: Excellent operational efficiency and integration with Adobe suite of applications. As in the case of Apple Compressor, engineers appear to have traded some degree of sharpness and contrast in order to suppress the most serious artifacts.Ĭomments (encode quality): overall less professional look than Squeeze or Episode lower contrast, muddier, softer, thus macroblocking and serious artifacting not as severe (see Fig 4d) Owing to its inclusion in the Adobe Creative Suite, AME sees wide use among a broad range of users. No HTML5 support.Ĭompared to Squeeze, Adobe Media Encoder produces a softer, more primitive look. Analysis pass is time-consuming but may produce cleaner results.
Other comments: Pro version supports the industry’s top codecs and workflows. Other comments: Outstanding user interface and ease of use, MLTU (Most Likely To Use) factor = HIGH robust HTML5 support H.264 implementation is best in classĮpisode applies more extensive analysis than Squeeze, helping to minimize serious artifacts at the price of much longer processing times.Ĭomments (encode quality): Higher contrast overall with deeper blacks than Squeeze look is not as organic but with good sharpness fewer contours and less banding apparent in torture test. One downside of this preferred strategy is the increased risk of banding, macroblocking, and contour artifacts.Ĭomments (encode quality): Very sharp, good contrast some notable contours/banding and macroblockage in ‘torture test’ Little, if any, dither or softness is applied in Squeeze 9 in order to suppress objectionable artifacts.