TMPGenc or CCE 2.50??

[Dizug]

Okay guys, I've been using CCE 2.50 to create SVCD's. But I just saw the video comparisons of this website using different encoders and I've noticed that these two were amongst the top. Which encoder outputs the best quality SVCD. Better yet, is the quality difference even noticeable to care. Just wanting to get the best video quality possible.

[Sefy]

How you view quality depends on you, each person has their own levels, for example, I can't tell the difference between VCD and SVCD when i'm playing it on my DVD/TV on the PC however it's easier to tell the difference.

So I don't bother with SVCD, I find them a waste of time, but that's my own personal opinion, others will tell you something else based on THEIR experience and quality.

So best I can tell you is to try both, from what i've read, TMPGEnc is better in VCD, while CCE is the best for SVCD.

[DJRumpy]

That's an old myth. CCE will produce superior VCD, CVD, and SVCD, when the correct matrix is used. Most newbs never bother to change the matrix to the correct setting, and the get an inferior output as a result. TMPgenc on the other hand, tends to produce macroblocks very easily in this format, as well as in SVCD/CVD format.

In CCE, ensure you select the 'Ultra Low Bitrate' matrix, or the 'Very Low Bitrate' matrix. 'Very Low' is better suited for SVCD, while 'Ultra Low' is better suited to VCD. Again, most newbs avoid these settings, thinking it will somehow reduce the bitrate of their output. It actually optimizes the output for the given format.

Regarding SVCD vs. VCD, most will tell you that SVCD looks superior. The SVCD format has twice the vertical resolution and over twice the bitrate limit that VCD does, so technically (and as most will tell you, visually) it is the better format. The same thing can be said for CVD, and DVD, with their higher resolution, and bitrate capabilites. If this wasn't the case, then our cinema releases of store bought DVD's would come in VCD flavors as well (they don't..they almost all use high resolutions like 720x480 for NTSC or 720x576 for PAL), or Half D1 resolutions: 352x480 (352x576 PAL). You'd be hard pressed to find any VCD resolution DVD's (352x240).

As in all things, quality is a subjective thing. View the samples in the VCD, SVCD, and DVD sections and judge for yourself.

[Sefy]

Myth Shmyth, CCE is not user friendly, and you need loads of optimizations to get the same quality you would with TMPGEnc, and as for quality, it's only for the user to decide what looks better

[SatStorm]

[DJRumpy]

I don't recall saying it wasn't user friendly although I don't consider a drop down click option for the matrix settings as being 'loads of optimizations'. As a rule, I rarely use any of the options in CCE, other than to set the audio bitrate, and the matrix. If I recall correctly, I believe that TMPGenc uses the exact same dropdown option technique, albeit TMPGenc has fewer default options. The issue was regarding VCD quality in CCE. Not speed, ease of use, or whether or not it will remove wrinkles in your laundry

I find TMPGenc's all-in-one attempt to insufficient for my needs. A jack of all trades....

[freak_in_cage_10k]

just reading your posts sefy & DJRumpy, i use cce 2.50 and dvd2svcd, how do i alter the bitrate matrix settings? can i do it in dvd2svcd??

cheers!

[Sefy]

@DJRumpy, CCE's standalone isn't friendly or gives alot of options like TMPGEnc does, only the plugin is more "friendly" and for that you need yet another program, and that's makes it heavier and more complicated to use.

TMPGEnc is easier to use, you can load a Template for loading all the default pre-settings you want, and it's quality is excellent without optimizing even.

As for the Quality issue, that's in the eye of the beholder, personaly I don't like CCE's VCD quality, I prefer Panasonic and then TMPGEnc, as for SVCD I can't say, cause I don't do SVCD's :P

@freak_in_cage_10k, DVD2SVCD I can't help you, as I never managed to get it working on my PC

[yysie]

I just copied the Ultra Low Bitrate & Low Bitrate Matrix to TMPGEnc... I think TMPGEnc is a little bit better. I used these settings:

2-pass Max: 2515 Avr: 2420 Min: 700
And of course... I copied the Low Bitrate Matrix... Just download the newest CCE demo version and enter the same Matrix in TMPGEnc & Save it!

The best thing to do is buying hardware for DVD, SVCD, VCD but I think that's to expensive.

@ DjRumphy: CCE 2.50 don't have a changable Matrix :P only higher versions have!

[DJRumpy]

CCE also has a template setting, where all of the settings can be pre-configured and saved. The interfaces are different, but the products are pretty simular for most of the encoding featuers. TMPGenc does include more filter options. CCE doesn't. I don't find the filters in TMPGenc all that useful, and the poor speed, for me, kills the product for any use other than a multiplexer/demultiplexer. As for plugins, most people tend to edit their AVI elsewhere before importing into TMPGenc (ala VirtualDub, Photoshop, AVISynth, etc). I can do everything that TMPGenc can do, only faster with AVISynth + CCE. This is true of any encoder that accepts frame served input (pretty much all of the mainstream encoders). TMPGenc is an excellent tool for the beginner/newbie. It provides a quick easy wizard to create VCD/SVCD, and DVD. Once someone starts to learn this as a hobby though, I expect most will start editing the input elsewhere, as the filters in TMPGenc are somewhat limited compared to the features and 3rd party plugins available for products like VirtualDub/AVISynth.

freak_in_cage_10k, you can edit the Matrix settings on the Matrix tab. Just uncheck the 'Use Default' option, and the matrix should become editable. Type in the numbers in each square (clicking in each square will give you a flashing cursor). In regards to the bitrate, it's not as easy in DVD2SVCD. You must edit the bitrate via the Bitrate tab settings. You have to figure the lowest/highest bitrate (range) that you find acceptable for X number of discs. The defaults are usually fine for most jobs.

[rodrigoveron]

I use dvd2svcd with cce 2.50 and i don't know about other encoders but my svcds look perfect, i encoded Lord of the rings at 1600 vbr in 3 cds, each one 60 min. and the movie looks amazing.

[adam]

DJRumpy

That only works for later versions of CCE. 2.5 doesn't even have a Matrix tab. The only way to change the Q matrices in 2.5 is to use a patcher which hexedits the CCE executable, but you must then patch the matrix into the video stream itself using restream.

The patcher actually has the ability to crack trial versions of CCE as well, so I won't say where you can get it, but being able to change matrices according to your source and output is beneficial.

[DJRumpy]

2.5 was the first version of CCE I tried. The patch I downloaded came with a matrix patcher, and about 15 different user matrices, including the standard ones that we have today. The patcher was in German, but readable. I'm sure it's still easily found on the net

yysie, you can use the Ulta-Low matrix for both VCD, and SVCD, but I would suggest you use it only for VCD.

As a rule, you should use the Ultra Low for mpeg's with bitrate's below 2000. Use the Very Low for Bitrate's from 2000-4000 (this is an 'ok' fit for SVCD). It should work with any encoder that supports an editable matrix.

[rob1]

Slightly hijacking the thread...

I use CCE Basic (because I can afford it)- and have been encoding 1/2 D at 2300 2-pass. Obviously, the use of a tweaked matrix would be a good idea. Is it possible to change the matrix on the basic version? Would the use of such a patcher do the trick? Would it be both possible and worth the effort? Thanks in advance...

[adam]

I would think it would work, but no guarantees. It won't hurt anything though, the worst that would happen is that you would have to unistall/reinstall CCE.

I tried the low and ultra low matrices for SVCDs and to be honest, I couldn't see any difference. You'll probably get the most noticable change when encoding VCDs, but its not a bad idea to use it for SVCDs either. There is also another matrix included in this patcher called the Angel matrix. Its for use with very low bitrates as well, and does seem to take some of the edge off of the artifacts that you get at those bitrates.

[yysie]

<edited -- do not request warez>

Okay, I'm Sorry

[adam]

Like I said, the patch also allows you to crack trial versions of CCE. Even though this little patcher is incredibly useful for completely legal reasons, it can still be used for illegal purposes. Sorry, I'd rather not post links to it here. It shouldn't be hard to find, but you'll have to find it on your own.

If you do use it, don't forget to use restream on your encoded video stream to patch in the matrix. If you don't than at best you will not get the benefit of the customized matrix, and at worse your quality will be severely degraded.

[DJRumpy]

Adam, on that same note, is there any reason you prefer to use bbMPEG to mutiplex? I can't say I'm happy with either that, or TMPGenc (there's not a lot of choices out there). Just curious.

[rob1]

Hm... okay, still playing with changing the matrix in CCE basic. Before I actually make the attempt, a quick question...

I'm encoding 352x480 with a bitrate around 2300. This IS a low bitrate, however my understanding is that at half D1 you're effectively doubling the bitrate since you're only encoding half the material (if that makes sense). So aside from the slight loss of detail from resizing down from 720x480, the quality of the encode should look more like a 4600 kbs encode. Now, IF this is correct- with half D1 at 2300, should I still be trying out a low bitrate matrix such as Angel or 'low bitrate matrix'? I'm guessing the answer is 'yes' since it's being suggested for SVCDs- which fall into approximately the same size/bitrate but I wanted to double check.

Thanks again in advance- I learn SO much from this forum!

[DJRumpy]

Adam, I've never noticed a difference using the SVCD matrices either. I do notice a difference on the few VCD's I've made though. Other than the expected VCD softness, the quality was excellent. No macroblocking at all.

If your making a Half-D1 DVD, then you aren't limited to the old SVCD/CVD standards. You can set the bitrate up to the DVD maximum of 9.8Mb/s if you like.

Rob, you are correct. Half D1 requires less bitrate than full D1, so it should look fine at an AVG or CBR of 2300. You should still use multipass vbr though since even CVD can have bit shortages in the low 2000 range. You can set your max to 9.8mb/s, although it will probably never spike that high. Set your AVG to 2300, and your min to 0, or if your player has a problem with 0, try a MIN of 300. You should be able to use the 'Very Low Bitrate' matrices as long as the AVG/CBR value falls in that templates range.

[troyvcd1]

Can you explain a little more on these matrixes. How do I know how to set them for my video. I use avi files from my minidv camcorder. Can you point me somewhere where I can read up on these matrixes. I got cce 2.5 and I am not sure if I can input these matrixes.

[txpharoah]

My results in the past 2 years have constantly shown TMPGENC to yield better results on both MPEG1 and MPEG2. While TMPGENC does admittedly have issues with macroblocking at lower bitrates, CCE is just as guilty of spewing noise onto the video. Just use higher bitrates. CCE is a headache to use, and not worth the trouble since any quality gain would be minimal at best. Both are low-end programs, no matter the costs. CCE needs a reality check on its prices. With the speed issues, that depends on your source. Loading a file with AVIsynth into CCE will not make it any faster than TMPGenc with a direct load of the file. CCE only accepts AVI, whereas TMPGENC accepts many formats without extra scripts.

So for me the choice is easy: TMPGENC PLUS.

I do have CCE, but that was before MAINCONCEPT came as part of the Adobe Premiere package. I now consider CCE to be a mistake I made. It wasn't worth the effort or money it cost. Same for DISCREET'S CLEANER, but at least it still has streaming and audio functions I use from time to time. Since I added PROCODER to my list of software, I've actually uninstalled CCE because it was useless in my eyes. I've found the ProCoder results to be better than both CCE and TMPGENC, but it's only drawback is an absence of a noise filter. Hence, I still use TMPGENC PLUS when the video needs noise removed (which is a lot of the time since I restore for my hobby).

I use lots of different stuff at work. My current favorite is the DVSTORM package with PREMIERE and MAINCONCEPT and AFTER EFFECTS. We've already got an order in through our distributor for ENCORE when it is released. Got some Mac/Matrox setups and some other machines. Not a huge Mac or Sun fan, so I stay away from some of those systems.

Anyway, I see lots of arguments for each program. Some are valid, some are not. I see both of them in this thread.

If you want easy with quality: TMPGENC
If you want hard with quality: CCE

They are actually not too far apart. Not as many would like you to believe. A lot of this just depends on your settings and skill level. For most people, TMPGENC is the easy choice.

[troyvcd1]

which version of tsunami patcher do I need for cce 2.5. How about cce 2.67 trial version, is there a patcher for this

[adam]

With the speed issues, that depends on your source.

No it most certainly does not. The effects of the source on your speed are ALWAYS going to be relative. If a problemsome source is going to slow down CCE than its going to slow down TMPGenc by roughly the same margin. The source is really irrellavent. Given the same source and the same setting CCE is about twice as fast as TMPGenc. This is simply a fact. Much of what makes CCE so expensive is its fast encoding speed, and much of what makes TMPGenc so cheap is its very slow encoding speed. With all due respect, if you don't think CCE is faster than TMPGenc than you are most certainly doing something very wrong.

Loading a file with AVIsynth into CCE will not make it any faster than TMPGenc with a direct load of the file. CCE only accepts AVI, whereas TMPGENC accepts many formats without extra scripts.

This is not true at all. CCE supports YUV sources, TMPGenc does not. With a YUV source you can load it directly into CCE via avisynth and completely skip the very time consuming conversion to RGB which is necessary when encoding in TMPGenc. This can speed up the encoding process by a whopping 30%. For many people, like me, YUV is the only source type used. By throwing avisynth into the equation you gain a very sizeable speed increase.

TMPGenc uses 3rd party decoders to read pretty much any file other than a raw avi. For most things it uses either VFAPI or direct show file readers. VFAPI is nothing more than a frameserver and it can be used just as easily with CCE. Take your d2v file and instead of loading it in TMPGenc, load it in VFAPI converter. 2 secs later you have a 5k avi file that you load in CCE and all is well. Its exactly the same thing. As for direct show filters, they are completely and utterly unreliable for use as a decoder within an encoder. If you want reliable decoding your best option is to use avisynth to frameserve to TMPGenc anyway. You don't need avisynth to use CCE at all. For any file type that TMPGenc uses VFAPI for, you can do the same thing with CCE. For all others, you can frameserve with virtualdub or even TMPGenc for that matter. If you like TMPGenc's filters, then just use them in CCE.

txpharoah it seems to me your beef is more with avisynth than with CCE. In any case, there are gui's for avisynth and there are many automated tools which will allow you to use avisynth without ever even looking at an AVS script.

txpharoah, in our private discussions you admitted that you had neither the time nor inclination to learn how to use CCE. With all due respect, I think you need to consider that perhaps the reason you dislike CCE is because you haven't fully unlocked its potential. If you simply use its default settings than I can pretty much guarantee that you will get average quality at best on your encodes, but this is in no way any kind of representation of CCE's quality. If used propery CCE is an extremely high quality encoder, just like TMPGenc, Procoder, Mainconcept, and some others. The most important factor in achieving quality encodes is YOU not the encoder. With a proper method and intelligent settings you can make just about any encoder produce excellent results.

Also I believe you have stated several times that most of your sources are from captures. Well these are obviously interlaced and CCE is not a field based encoder so interlaced sources are not its strong point, and I don't think many claim that it is. CCE is widely regarded as one of the very best software encoders for progressive footage. For interlaced material I personally find Procoder, especially with its field based encoding setting, a much better choice. But again, CCE's quality in this one particular area is not any kind of indication of its quality on other sources. For progressive footage I personally find CCE superior to all other encoders I have tried, with or without avisynth even being used at all.

BTW: Procoder has several noise reduction filters, that's what the different blur filters are. Blurring is one of the most common ways to remove noise and TMPGenc's noise reduction filter is nothing more than a blur filter.

[adam]

troyvcd1

I have seen two different patchers released by two different authors. I don't believe there are multiple versions of either of these patchers, and they were both created for use with 2.5, but possibly might work on later versions. If you want customizable Quantize Matrices in later versions of CCE than you may have to purchase it.

[txpharoah]

The source is really irrellavent.

You also have to remember that CCE will not load an MPEG, QuickTime or DIVX file directly. That's where my source consideration comes from. I don't always start from an AVI. CCE bogs down horribly when it is fed an MPEG2 or non-AVI format from the timeline, especially from Premiere.

VFAPI is nothing more than a frameserver and direct show filters are completely and utterly unreliable for use as a decoder within an encoder. If you want reliable decoding your best option is to use avisynth to frameserve to TMPGenc anyway.

I think you may be a bit harsh here too. It does a good job.

txpharoah it seems to me your beef is more with avisynth than with CCE. In any case, there are gui's for avisynth and there are many automated tools which will allow you to use avisynth without ever even looking at an AVS script. txpharoah, in our private discussions you admitted that you had neither the time nor inclination to learn how to use CCE. With all due respect, I think you need to consider that perhaps the reason you dislike CCE is because you haven't fully unlocked its potential. If you simply use its default settings than I can pretty much guarantee that you will get average quality at best on your encodes, but this is in no way any kind of representation of CCE's quality.

I won't deny that I'm not a CCE expert (though not to say I haven't used it extensively), but the program makes itself impossible, especially for those that are not computer-language inclined. A good product, as ADOBE has taught to all that are willing to learn, a good product is only as good as its functions AND its interface. I shouldn't have to decompile the program to just make it work as promised. The full potential should be readily available, within a reasonable amount. It shouldn't need it's own training course, though Id be willing to read guides and manuals. So far, that's not helped any, and CCE suggestions never seem to match from one person to the next. I don't find that an issue with any other software.

Do I have an issues with AVIsynth as well? Absolutely. Why should CCE need a freeware program to make it function properly? Why not work good on your own? Others can certainly do so. Photoshop would have died years ago if it had needed a script-based program to make it accept images in variant colorspaces. CCE accepting only AVI in its native form is as bad as if Photoshop only accepted BMP images and nothing more.

BTW: Procoder has several noise reduction filters, that's what the different blur filters are. Blurring is one of the most common ways to remove noise and TMPGenc's noise reduction filter is nothing more than a blur filter.

Umm... Hmmmm.... They don't perform as well as the ones in TMPGenc. I'm aware blurring is the primary method of noise removal, but not the only one. Procoder only blurs, and if I'm not mistaken, its only frame-by-frame and not temporal. If you have any suggestions on making a Procoder blur filter look just as good as a TMPGenc 20/1/20 noise filter, then PM me. I'd love to use ProCoder more. I'm also suspect that ProCoder ALREADY removes noise on encode, but I've only had the program for a few weeks now. Been too busy to look into it.

[adam]

You also have to remember that CCE will not load an MPEG, QuickTime or DIVX file directly. That's where my source consideration comes from. I don't always start from an AVI. CCE bogs down horribly when it is fed an MPEG2 or non-AVI format from the timeline, especially from Premiere.

Divx are avi. They load and encode just fine in CCE, at least I've never had any problems.

Mpeg files are frameserved to TMPGEnc through VFAPI. Like I said, the exact same thing can be done with CCE. There is absolutely no difference here.

True, TMPGenc has a quicktime plugin and CCE does not. You would have to just frameserve from TMPGEnc. This would not take any extra effort though.

When you frameserve from Adobe or any other NLE that is always going to be the bottleneck. Its not CCE that is slow, its your editor. Its no different than feeding CCE a source over a slow network. Why would you blame CCE for this?

VFAPI is nothing more than a frameserver and direct show filters are completely and utterly unreliable for use as a decoder within an encoder. If you want reliable decoding your best option is to use avisynth to frameserve to TMPGenc anyway.

I think you may be a bit harsh here too. It does a good job.

VFAPI does a fine job, but its can also be used with CCE so there is no argument there to be made. No I am not being at all harsh on direct show file reading. Its meant to be used for playback, not for feeding content into an encoder. The vast majority of sync problems are probably caused because of this.

Do I have an issues with AVIsynth as well? Absolutely. Why should CCE need a freeware program to make it function properly?

If this is your definition of "properly" than I don't see why you prefer TMPGenc. TMPGEnc uses VFAPI as a file reader. This is a freeware application. The application can also be used with CCE in the same exact manner. Like I said, you don't need to use avisynth at all to use CCE.

Now you have a valid point, but its not really relavent in this thread. Yes, CCE is not as easy to use with many of the less than professional sources. TMPGenc is aimed at the home user, CCE is aimed at the professional. The average person who shells out over a thousand dollars for an encoder is not going to be using divx as a source. So if you do decide to use certain kinds of sources, you may be forced to take extra steps to ensure a smooth encode...granted. But this has nothing to do with this thread. The question is which encoder produces the best quality.

BTW: Procoder has several noise reduction filters, that's what the different blur filters are. Blurring is one of the most common ways to remove noise and TMPGenc's noise reduction filter is nothing more than a blur filter.

Umm... Hmmmm.... They don't perform as well as the ones in TMPGenc.

I'm no mind reader txpharoah. When one says something is "absent" I assume that means it doesn't exist, not just that it is inferior. I was simply pointing out that Procoder does have noise reduction filters, several actually.

If you have any suggestions on making a Procoder blur filter look just as good as a TMPGenc 20/1/20 noise filter, then PM me. I'd love to use ProCoder more. I'm also suspect that ProCoder ALREADY removes noise on encode, but I've only had the program for a few weeks now. Been too busy to look into it.

If you prefer TMPGenc's method of blurring than simply frameserve from TMPGenc to Procoder, or any other encoder for that matter. All encoders essentially remove some noise during encoding. That's not the encoder's job, but it invariably must happen just by nature of how mpeg encoding works. I personally haven't noticed Procoder doing any excessive blurring at default settings. Keep in mind that there are countless variables which will effect the softness of your picture.

[disturbed1]

CCE takes quicktime import (.mov). I've used it with Avid's quicktime reference file output. CCE also takes any file in an avi wrapper if you have the correct codecs installed, and it meets CCE's frame size and fps specs.

VFAPI only serves in RGB mode, which can slow down CCE. Same goes for avisynth serving to TMPG without converting to RGB first.

Although TMPG will use internal routines to convert any format to RGB, using mpeg2dec3's yv12torgb24 is slightly faster. Same goes for resizing.

I agree with Adam 100% on using avisynth with TMPG, it's more reliable, and you can tweak the speed, and quality.

Tx,

Since you have problems using avisynth, check out Movie Stacker, uses avisynth 2.08, has some common filters included, takes d2v and avi input. I use Avisynthesizer, you create templates, then right click on any file and select send to, and select your template.

I perfer TMPG because of the varied sources I use, mainly interlaced.
If I only shot 24P footage, then CCE might be my choice. CCE was designed for taking full D1 input, and out putting an mpeg-2 DVD video stream. Everything else is an after thought.

I did use TMPG 99% of the time. I find here lately it's split evenly between CCE and TMPG for dvd back ups. Both have their strong points, and flaws.


Most "normal" viewers wouldn't be able to see the difference between a proper CCE encode versus TMPG. I think we'll all end up crosseyed searching for the "best" encoder.


Wonder why no one ever mentions LSX or Panasonic's mpeg-2 encoder. I find there are 6 quality encoders (TMPG, CCE, ProCoder, Main Concept, LSX, PWI), but everybody compares the most expensive (CCE) to the cheapest (TMPG), what about the middle?

It'd be nice to update the comparison table

[SatStorm]

Because CCE and TMPGenc ARE the best of all.
Not that the other ones ain't good, but ain't THAT good.
Procorder is somehow between CCE with avsynth and TMPGenc on default settings. Tweek TMPGenc settings and watch it blow away procorder results! BUT: TMPGenc is SLOW. That's the main problem. There are also others, like that it is better for NTSC than PAL, any version varies and to make it work better than the default settings you have to study "TMPGEncology". But then, with CCE you have to use always third software, so let's say that the minus are somehow equal between them.

Imagine the opposite: CCE slower TMPGenc. WHO would use it? Only some high -end picture quality freaks....
Quality is good BUT speed is better. If TMPGenc was faster CCE with the quality today offers, CCE wouldn't be such a big deal.
BUT: The point is that CCE have them both: Quality and Speed (If you learn how to use it). That is a fact and we can't say the opposite.

[DJRumpy]

Well said SatStorm. You'll probably start a flame war, but well said . I agree completely with Adam. CCE is faster, and produces better quailty encodes than TMPGenc. It's not rocket science to learn, but it can be very daunting to a beginner, or even someone experienced with this hobby, but a GUI oriented person.

It sounds like it would be fairer to say that txpharoah prefers a GUI interface for editing/filters and speed isn't a primary concern, so if your that type of person, then CCE+AVISynth would not be a good choice as compared to TMPGenc. If your not worried about any learning curve, or getting your hands dirty, and you more interested in speed/quality, then CCE + AVISynth would be a better choice.

I work in IT. One of my associates is a programmer. He still refuses to use AVISynth and CCE, simply becuase he doesn't want to take time to learn how to write AVISynth scripts. His encodes still take a day to finish. I find this funny, since his job is in programming. To each his own.

My opinion. Learn AVISynth, and use CCE Basic ($50 some odd dollars US). You'll be glad you did.