To CCE SP & Lite fans - why are they so expensive?

[q1aqza]

I have only used TMPGenc 2.53 (apart from Studio 7 which I soon stopped using) to encode my MPEGs and out of curiosity I recently tried the evaluation versions of CCE Lite and SP and apart from speed I couldn't see why they are so expensive? I guess speed is a big factor and time=cost/benefit for commercial purposes but for the home/hobbyist I think TMPGenc is fantastic especially as it is free. Maybe I am missing something but I really cannot see why anyone would spend $1950 on the SP version. $250 for the Lite version is a little more palatable but even so, the fact that you still need to use another 3rd party product to change resolution it just does nothing for me except make me appreciate even more that TMPGenc is out there. I would be willing to pay $250 for TMPGenc if it had the speed of CCE as it has so many other features.

As a relatively newbie I guess I may be missing something so hopefully a CCE fan or two can enlighten me as to some of the benefits of Lite or SP and maybe I can do some further tests from suggestions.

I'm very interested to hear some views on this...

[kinneera]

Maybe I am missing something but I really cannot see why anyone would spend $1950 on the SP version. $250 for the Lite version is a little more palatable but even so, the fact that you still need to use another 3rd party product to change resolution it just does nothing for me except make me appreciate even more that TMPGenc is out there.

We're not really the target market for CCE. It's really intended for corporate types of sales.

It's a pity we can't get a version of TMPGEnc ported to C, since that would probably make it much faster - the developer indicated somewhere that it was written in Delphi .

[q1aqza]

Yes that would be great.

I read somewhere that TMPGenc 2.54 is faster for 2-pass VBR than previous versions. I downloaded it yesterday and did a couple of tests and actually found it a little slower (approx: 1 minute slower per 1 minute of AVI - has anyone else found this ?

[q1aqza]

I forgot to add that it seems so many people on this site are using CCE that I assumed that they have spent loads of money on SP or are just using the Lite version. I must be in the wrong job coz there's no way I can afford the SP version!!!

[Jestorius]

You aren't in the wrong job, you just can't finde the right place of this kind of stuff. Anyway I guess maybe 1% of all users here has payed for the Lite ver. and nobody for the SP ver. I guess only 5-10% has used a creditcard to get Tmpgenc. But this forum is to exchange knowledge and not to exchange progs. Think, all these forums around, all are abouth use of software, encoding, authoring. Do you think that one who had payed 25.000 for a DVD authoring software can't get better support then this.

Ok, these softwares costs so much becouse they can give you the possibbilities to make more money. And if you are making money with one of these then the price isn't so bad.

[q1aqza]

I wasn't aware until today that there were cracks for CCE. Obviously I totally respect this site for the knowledge sharing that mustn't be jeopardised by overtly sharing info on cracks.

But now I know about the CCE SP 2.5 crack I will try to find one (unless someone out there who reads this can perhaps email it to me I would be most grateful !! ??)

[Jestorius]

Don't waste your time. There isn't any stable one. I've seen a 2.5 one somewhere withouth any crck but you lose some function.

Aren't you just happy with Tmpgenc, only 48 $, or 12a free for rest of your life? Or BBmpeg, it's totally free. Or just buy a video card with hardware accelerated mpeg encoding as I did. You don't need CCE.

[Malcom]

CCE produces a higher quality image than TMPEGENC, and it has a much more powerful VBR function.

Read "Getting the most from CCE" guide on doom9.org to get a better idea of what I'm writing about.

[Jestorius]

Sorry, I can't be agree with you. But doesn't metter. CCE is much faster, that's shure.