I got my hands on an MXO 2 mini MAX this past week and got a chance to run the MAX through some paces and was wondering if anyone was a fan of the MAX card and why?
tl;dr review: Not for quality, but for speed. To a point.
The point in my test was to see the time it took and what kind of data rate it used when set to relatively the same settings.
Raw Test Data;
File in question was a 5.4 GB (4:36) ProRess 422 HQ file with a mix of grain, action and more static like headshots that tend to give a good range to test against. Does not however have the compression killers; large explosions, swimming pools, etc.
Settings are CRF 70 for Matrox with hardware scaling on. (Hardware scaling roughly doubled compression time but improved quality significantly)
For the Apple H.264 results; auto key frames, auto data rate,
My work based x264 results are here as well but the compression preset is optimized for quality and file size and so is normally longer. I think I need to work on optimizing it further to drop the time.
Type TIME SIZE (MB)
x264 - Quality 10: 11:02 157.8
x264 - 720: 18:42 120.0
x264 - 1080: 38:29 237.3
x264 - Speed (1080): 19:49 251.7
x264 - Standard: 5:59 45.8
Apple - 720: 8:32 280.7
Apple - 1080: 13:30 547.2
Apple - Standard: 2:39 111.4
Matrox - Quality 10: 3:44 63.1
Matrox - 720: 3:45 131.1
Matrox - 1080: 3:57 241.7
Matrox - Standard: 3:41 60.9 (SLOWER than Apple H.264!)
Matrox - No Hardware Resize: 1:42 60.8
The Apple H.264 files held up very well compared but tend to use a much higher data rate.
The x264 files I found stayed the closest to the ProRes
The Matrox H.264 files remind me of photos that have the noise reduction cranked (*cough* Olympus *cough*) or cameras that don't record their H.264 files at a high enough data rate; fine detail is lost but the essence of the picture holds together nicely.