CCE vs. TMPGEnc

[gamer_8668]

I've been looking for a good encoder...but i'm split between TMPGEnc Plus and CCE...

[edsmith77]

gamer_8668,
"GOOD" is in the eye of the beholder. Questions like this are likely to start encoder holy wars.

A better question would be to describe what you want or mean by "good." Then there will be less fall out than the original post.

In fact there are numerous other encoders available besides the ones you mentioned. Check out the tools section on the left hand side of the screen.

Now for personal preference, my choice is CCE. I find the TMPGenC encoder just to slow for my tastes. Quality, is about the same but its a trade for me vs speed of encoding.

Let the rumble begin.
READY, AIM, ............

[Wile_E]

CCE. It is fast and the Basic version has a 2D Adaptive filter that you can adjust. Plus it works great with AviSynth. TMPGEnc is painfully slow. It really needs a rewrite of the engine in a different language then that slow-ass Delphi.

[guns1inger]

Tmpgenc is certainly capable of producing some good quality output, has a great selection of filters, and is pretty easy to work with. But it is so slow, even on fast machines. I was also very disappointed with it's output from PAL DV footage, which is when I stopped using it.

CCE really needs avisynth or virualdub to get the most out of it, although 2.70 onwards can at least resize footage. This can make it more daunting for beginners, however it is generally 3- 4 times faster than tmpgenc on the same machine, for equal or better quality. You can do a 4 pass VBR render in CCE in less time than a 2 pass tmpgenc render.

Why doesn't ProCoder get a mention in the poll ?

[DereX888]

LOL thats a stupid poll, how can you compare i.e. porsche to ford? Yeah, both have 4 wheels, but thats about it.

[FulciLives]

Tmpgenc is certainly capable of producing some good quality output, has a great selection of filters, and is pretty easy to work with. But it is so slow, even on fast machines. I was also very disapointed with it's output from PAL DV footage, which is when I stopped using it.

CCE really needs avisynth or virualdub to get the most out of it, although 2.70 onwards can at least resize footage. This can make it more daunting for beginners, however it is generally 3- 4 times faster than tmpgenc on the same machine, for equal or better quality. You can do a 4 pass VBR render in CCE in less time than a 2 pass tmpgenc render.

Almost exactly what I would have said so why say it again?

CCE it is for me

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Wile_E]

You should probably add Procoder to the poll. LordSmurf won't enter this discussion unless Procoder or JVC is mentioned. He is probably mad.

[greymalkin]

I'll look into my crystal ball and predict what he would say:

"procoder. period."

[Paul_G]

CCE & CCEFront is a excellent combination to use, nice speed and good quality files.

Tmpgenc is a fantastic encoder and produces good quality output files but it is just too damn slow, so slow you can do a film with CCE, convert audio to compliant file, author dvd and burn dvd before tmpgenc has even finished the video encoding.

[ozymango]

You should probably add Procoder to the poll. LordSmurf won't enter this discussion unless Procoder or JVC is mentioned. He is probably mad.

And isn't edDV a MainConcept fan? :P

Also any real-world discussion of encoders should include $$$ considerations, not all of us can afford whatever encoder they might ultimately desire.

[dipstick]

You should have included MainConcept and Procoder.

Of your two choices I'd rather go with TMPGEnc. Sure it's slow, but it produces better quality in my opinion, not to mention lower cost.

[DRP]

I use both but CCE only via DVD Rebuilder. Your question however was with regard specifically converting AVI to MPEG-2 so in that respect you can ignore what I know about CCE. My vote goes to TMPGEnc Plus simply because speed is not an issue to me, I have patience. Instead I value options and an actual GUI that works to use the program. This TMPGEnc has in spades. The last time I tried to use CCE for AVI conversion I just gave up after 5 minutes. Too much work and effort involved to figure out just the very basics.

As far as quality is concerned, from an AVI source I really don't think even the most picky person would be able to tell the difference between the encoders. Too much data has already been discarded in the compression to AVI for a noticeable difference between the two top encoders. Your choice is between speed = CCE or ease of use = TMPGEnc.

[julitomg]

mmm...guess what, I also vote for TMPEGEnc...

[DereX888]

some people mistaken *encoder* with *editor*
CCE is just an encoder (and yes, it always had GUI), while Tsunami is a bit of both (there goes DRP's "I value options..."), however aside of its 'editor' options - it still sucks as an encoder. And sucks not only because of its speed (it used to take a week to encode single *VCD* episode when I started this hobby, so trust me - few hrs more or less to encode something nowadays really doesn't matter to me ) but most importantly - it sucks quality-wise. Hence by using Tsunami encoder you get your encodes not only slower, but also worsen quality than they could be. All it takes is a tiny-bit of learning curve for CCE or Procoder, thats all.

However Tsunami is a great tool for any newbie, or any occasional user - those not needing razor-sharp quality on their home videos should go for it of course, I may be wrong, but IMO price-wise there is no better tool on the market ATM.

Oh btw - please people, don't make an ass out of yourselves here and start comparing a one- or two-pass encodes to a multi-pass encodings.
If your encode made with Tsunami is better than the same made with CCE or Procoder, then obviously you need to start over preferably with help from some good encoding guides on CCE/PC (I think there are some on this website).

[DRP]

You've missed the point. The OP asked about conversion from AVI source to MPEG-2. Now I know he didn't specify *compressed* AVI but I think it's fair to assume he means XviD/DivX source since those are at least 90% of all AVI files. So that being the case talk about "razor-sharp quality" is pointless unless you magically know a way to actually *improve* video quality while still going through a lossy compression process. Didn't think so.

And yes TMPGEnc is an encoder. Womble MPEG-VCR is an editor. TMPGEnc MPEG Editor is an editor. You can't miss them, they usually have the word "editor" is their name somewhere.

Also talk of Procoder and "razor-sharp" in the same breath is pointless since it is well acknowledged that Procoder produces a smoother, softer image than either of TMPGEnc or CCE by design. Some people like that look and consequently rate Procoder as a "better" encoder. I don't, but I'm entitled to my opinion.

[DereX888]

all right.
CCE vs TMPGEnc? (as OP ask) is a no-brainer.

CCE

i cant be more clear now, can i?

[hrlslcbr]

all right.
CCE vs TMPGEnc? (as OP ask) is a no-brainer.

CCE

i cant be more clear now, can i?

Let the war begin!!
My vote goes to CCE, because I like it's quality and speed. I was a TMPGEnc user a while ago, and now that I've used both encoders, I find CCE much easier to use and overall better.

[fritzi93]

Hmmm, I don't get the criticism of TMPGEnc as to quality of output. IMO, it's as good as CCE, or close enough as to make no difference. I'll take either one over Mainconcept or Procoder.

But speed *IS* an issue. I still use TMPGEnc for short clips, and its interface is comfortable. But if you get far enough along in this hobby that you're using Avisynth, you should be using CCE instead of TMPGEnc.

[dipstick]

The OP should specify if he means xvid\divix avi. If that's the case, then it doesn't realy mater wich encoder he chooses, becouse the source is poor quality anyway. He might as well use the speed of CCE to encode them.

I only work with DV-AVI, Huffy, Lagarith and RGB 24\32. Yes I can see a difference in quality of TMPGEnc and CCE. TMPGEnc produces better quality, but is slower. You also have to play games when encoding interlaced DV-AVI with CCE, no such problems with TMPGEnc.

[FulciLives]

I don't like TMPGEnc Plus since it uses the RGB colorspace.

Using CCE and AviSynth one never has to switch to the RGB colorspace.

That ALONE is worth using CCE vs. TMPGEnc Plus.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[DereX888]

well, *I* always assume the discussion is about best quality source (raw or at worst huffy).
If this discussion is about converting some sick high compression avis like them divx/xvid, then please disregard all my posts in this thread. I have no interest in such discussions whatsoever, it might be as well about converting real media or other crap i despise, bleh

[fmctm1sw]

For simple avi to mpeg2, it's CCE for me. It's 2X faster on my PC. Nothing against Tsunami but I do all my filtering, etc with avisynth or virtualdub and frameserve if need be...

[dipstick]

FulciLives wrote:

I don't like TMPGEnc Plus since it uses the RGB colorspace.

Using CCE and AviSynth one never has to switch to the RGB colorspace.

That ALONE is worth using CCE vs. TMPGEnc Plus.

That's a very valid point and points out the second weakness of TMPGEnc. The first being speed. No encoder is perfect.

[lordsmurf]

I'll look into my crystal ball and predict what he would say:

"procoder. period."

We have the same crystal ball.

[DereX888]

I'll look into my crystal ball and predict what he would say:

"procoder. period."

We have the same crystal ball.

both of you: its time to wipe it off clean, me thinks...
once you clean it up, you'll see how some letters stand out there more than the others...

p r o C C o d E r . . .

:P

[lordsmurf]

CCE adds noise. Faster, but at the cost of noise.
TMPGEnc is slower. Encode overnight, no big deal.
Procoder is clean and fast both.
MainConcept is slightly blurry. Average speed.

That about covers it.
Most other encoders are crap. Or hardware.

[mattso]

HC!

[manono]

CCE adds noise.

Not true. If you use something more recent than 2.50 and a decent matrix, that's no longer true.

Procoder is blurry, since its default filtering can't be turned off. It may be OK for interlaced and/or less than top-quality sources, but for the best and most detailed DVD backups, it leaves a lot to be desired.

[lordsmurf]

Procoder is not blurry. MC is blurry. I've seen some weird crap in PC2, but not PC1. The PC2 errors I could never duplicate, and I don't even remember what those were anymore. I saw it once, made a post about it, and that was that.

CCE noise still exists in the latest version. It seems to be an error in the encoding engine. CCE is just an overly expensive encoder. Price does not make it good. You'll find a lot of pros enjoy other encodes, Procoder, certain MC flavors, or hardware.

Also, who the hell uses an encoder for DVD backups? Why does everything on this site always have to be about ******* stupid ass "backups". I just don't get it. Video is larger than the unimaginative folks that only copy pre-made discs.

[manono]

...or hardware.

Yeah, like the hardware CCE encoder, maybe?

It seems to be an error in the encoding engine.

Baloney. Perhaps you don't know how to use it proerly.

I just don't get it.

You said it, not I.

I can't believe I've allied myself with someone whose icon is a girl with jiggling breasts. Hi DereX888.