Is encoding with CCE SP really faster and better quality?

[Dead Reckoning]

Just wondering. 2000 bucks sounds like it should make an instant encode [/img]

[BJ_M]

encoding is only as good as your source is - other encoders can give excellent results also - sometimes better on some material ..

having the best quality source material is the best way to improve mpeg encoding

[Dead Reckoning]

Ah, so what your saying is, a DVDrip will encode much faster than a Television rip?

[BJ_M]

i didnt say faster - i said better quality

[Dead Reckoning]

Actually, you never said quality or faster. I assumed you were talking about both since I asked about both.

[edDV]

Pro software is taylored to pro needs. Pro needs seldom include encoding MPeg2 off VHS sources.

[Dead Reckoning]

Can I safely assume that the better the rip, the faster it will go? Or am I totally offbase?

[edDV]

Can I safely assume that the better the rip, the faster it will go? Or am I totally offbase?

Speed depends on CPU horsepower mostly.
Quality in provides quality out. Commecial DVD uses 35mm film transfers, HDTV, 4:2:2 component or highest quality PAL/NTSC as input to the encoder.

[celtic_druid]

The software also wasn't designed for converting DVDRips back to DVD.

The quality of the input won't have too big an effect on encoding speed, although the amount of action, noise, etc. will have some impact.

[edDV]

The software also wasn't designed for converting DVDRips back to DVD.

The quality of the input won't have too big an effect on encoding speed, although the amount of action, noise, etc. will have some impact.

Very true. Action scenes are often hand massaged frame by frame to get the best visual result while managing datarate spikes and bit budget. Often nonessential detail is painted out of action sequences to control bitrate. You can see this when you step frame an action scene.

[vhelp]

Another important factor here, is technique.

In other words, just because Person A results show high scores
from say, VHS source, does not mean Person B will have the same,
results, even if using the same equipment. There are other
phenomina's that occur from user to user that will effect
results.

-vhelp 3483

[Dead Reckoning]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

[aktee]

IMO, I don't think CCE SP is worth the buck.
CCE Basic do.
I mean, couple more passes for 1900 bucks more, no way.

One thing is.. with low bitrate (2000), CCE has nicer quality than TMPGENC.. and it's really, really faster.

Why low bitrate, you might ask.
I don't encode hollywood movies, only cartoons. Cartoons doesn't have alot of details, 2000 is enought =)).

[lpn1160]

Download a trial version and see for yourself. Only YOU can answer your own question!!

[lordsmurf]

CCE is "faster" .... but only in some situations when dealing with certain sources.

But Procoder is almost equally as fast in the same situations.

It's TMPGEnc and a few others that bog down real bad.

Mostly DV sources and some of the unweildly uncompressed AVIs. but even then, not a hard and fast rule.

[offline]

CCE SP seems best for 35mm transfer or general AVI transcoding with frame-serve. Procoder shines with DV. TMPGenc by itself is excellent for analog TV/VHS sources in good condition.

[Wile_E]

A lot of opinions, from a lot of different people. It's best to try each software and decide for yourself. I was using TMPGEnc 3.0, but I couldn't stand the long encodes. It is so slow! I contacted TMPGEnc Support, and asked if they are rewriting the software to be faster. They replied "we do not think that
have any necessary to update our product to any other language."

So I tried both CCE Basic and Procoder Express. Both are faster, and provide great results. But I decided on CCE, because it is fastest, and has a built-in filter you can use to get rid of VHS tape jitter/noise. Procoder also has a built-in filter to clean video, but it is not adjustable. CCE's is adjustable. This "filter" can be enabled by checking the "Quality Setting" checkbox, and moving the slider to "complex". I am finding this provides clean enough video, without the hassle of using Convolution3D. Procoder also enhances contrast slightly. Whites are just a tad whiter than the original DV source. I do not like it automatically adjusting my source. User should be given the option what to do. If I wanted a more contrasty image, I would alter it myself.

[Trident5]

I have tried Cinema Craft products a couple of times each time my audio and video have been out of sync..Ive used others like Mainconcept, Tpmgenc Plus, Tpmgenc 3.0 Express never ran into those problems with anyone of those.. Now im sure its somthing im not setting but never been able to figure that out. But the other progs almost do it all themselves with very little ajustment... just my 2 cents

[spectroelectro]

CCE is much faster than competing encoders *provided* you use CBR. If you use something like CBR 6000, CCE will encode almost twice as fast as real time on a 3 Ghz CPU. However, as you move to multipass encoding with more and more passes, CCE's encoding slows down considerably.

As for encoding quality, using exact same source material (laserdisc), CCE outputs excellent quality encoded video but no better quality than Mainconcept or TMPGenc or Procoder or Quenc.

You pay the big bucks for speed with CCE. Quality is very good but no better than any of the competing encoders. And you only get the extreme speed in CCE if you avoid multipass VBR encoding and stick with CBR which of course tends to bloat the filesize of the mpeg-2 output from CCE.

[ZiGGY909]

I have tried Cinema Craft products a couple of times each time my audio and video have been out of sync..

thats because you shouldnt use CCE for audio, as it sucks.

use cce for the video and besweet for the audio or there are alot of other programs out there for audio, softencode is quite good.

and btw... i recommend CCE, been using it for a while now and i'll never go back to any other program unless i have to.

[vhelp]

IMO, speed should be last, on the cosideration train. I'm only
saying this, based on my built-up wisdom, having used the vast
many encoders out there. Anyways..

When choosing an encoder, the very first top of the list factor
of choice should always be quality. Then, the other things such
as, tweaks; and features; and of course, speed; etc.

When anticipating a restoration project, speed should be the last
thing you want to consider. Restoration = Quality.. not speed.

Speed is good, but in almost everyday life, it usually entails
some form of trickery / deception or reduction in cost through some
form of man-made deception (which is usually some sceam'ing way of
cutting of quality)

-vhelp 3499

[guns1inger]

Of course CBr will be faster than multi-pass VBR - it only goes through the data one time. A 3 pass VBR encode will take approx. 3 times as long as a CBR pass. This is true for any encoder that offrers both CBR and multipass VBR encoding. Most encoders limit multi-pass to 2 passes, which in most cases is enough. CCE is one of the few that allows the user to set the number of passes.

But a 2 pass VBR encode in CCE will still take only about a quarter of the time that a 2-pass VBR encode in tmpgenc will take.

I agree that quality should be the number one feature, but the reality is that in a commercial environment, time is money. If encoder A is 3 times faster than encoder B, and the quality difference is not great, then the faster encoder will often win out.

[Skynet107]

There are a couple of reasons I rely on CCE. For one, it gives easily best quality at low bitrates. It can give excellent quality at bitrates (below 2500) that other encoders have no hope with.

Secondly, speed. A 4 pass CCE encode can easily end up faster than TMPGEnc or Procoder and gives at least as good results.

People will argue endlessly over what encoder is better, but after using the top 3-4 encoders over the last 2 years, IMO CCE is the best overall.

[guns1inger]

The other thing to remember - you can get CCE quality and speed for a fraction of the $2k cost of SP. CCE Basic is $60, and does all the important things it's big brother does, but is limited to a maximum of 2 passes. In most cases, 2 is enough (most encoders only offer 2passes for multi-pass anyway) as after3 or so the returns (i.e. the increase in quality) are not worth the encoding time, and in most cases can't be seen by the naked eye, regardless what the 9 pass superheros will tell you.

[compuser]

There are a couple of reasons I rely on CCE. For one, it gives easily best quality at low bitrates. It can give excellent quality at bitrates (below 2500) that other encoders have no hope with.

Is this with 2 passes, or more than 2 passes?