Tmpgenc better than CCE in my opinion.

[Haku]

I just got CCE SP working,and i think i'll stick with Tmpgenc.Yes i know CCE encodes alot quicker,but theres no where near as meny settings as tmp.
Theres no clip frame,source range,sharpen edge .... etc.......no source ratio or video arrange mode.

[Truman]

There are a lot of topics about TMPG vs. CCE in this forum.
What do you mean, if you say "better"? You miss all the filters, that TMPG offers? Well, CCE is a pure encoding engine, that comes with only very basic filters and even more the new pulldown feature is buggy. However, if you want to edit the video I recommend to use an editor such as Avisynth or Premiere. Special tasks - special tools.
If one compares the quality of the encoders TMPG vs. CCE you are partly right anyway. TMPG is the better MPEG-1 encoder and might handle high quality source as DV better than CCE. For progressive sources or lossless captured sources CCE is the first choice.

[Faceman101]

AVISynth + CCE = TMPGEnc on steroids.

please do not start another one of these threads.

[vhelp]

Afternoon,

Well, I think that for the most part, CCE ($2000) is for the more advanced
group, those being able to utilize AVISynth scripts, as this is the gateway
to a successful encoding as good or better then TMPG in some instances.

AVISynth's scripting language includes:
* sharp
* Blue
* Temporal and Smoothers
* denoiser's ie Spatial etc.
* resizers from bicubic to bilinear etc.
* boarders: Letterbox(x,x) is my favorite, but it's said to use
* Crop
* etc. etc.

Following are Formats:
A * Source -> AVS Script --> CCE . . . .if no color issues, else below
B * Source -> AVS Script --> Vdub ---> *.vdr ----> CCE (see optional params)

Optional Params after CCE encodes of 23.976 Film to 29.970 :
C *.mpv --> 3:2 Pulldown.exe --> bbMPEG[Aud/Vid] --> final MPEG-2 clip

The only downside to CCE, at least in v2.50 is the lack of 3:2 pulldown.
For this, you have to use the DOS version of PULLDOWN.EXE which
takes on some parameters (above)

CCE is not for the faint heart. I've had numerous issues w/ it working in
my PC systems for months on end till one day, I was able to figure it out
enough to make me happy Now I have no problems getting CCE to encode
my AVI clips.

Yes, CCE doesn't have as many settings, and even, those that are, are
limited in the "amount" or "value" level you can put (v2.50) and this will
limit you in the tweaking department - Below is just a small list of ie's. . .
* MPEG-1 - is not the greatest quality, at least not for the standard VCD 1150 bitrate
.. TMPG's is a little bitter in quality department here.
* GOPS - can't be extended as much as TMPG's can.
* QMatrix - may be be modified w/patch, though I have not tried it yet but later
.. versions of CCE does allow you to make modifications in this area.
* .VAF - this file has to be deleted every time you start a new frameserve
.. if you don't delete it, you'll get those blasted error beeps
.. only works if you don't make any modification to the frameserver source
.. here is where the even extra speed kicks in... one less pass ie, 3.1 passes
.. the first time, and the second time you encode same clip, will not require
.. to re-encode that *.VAF again, taking out the .1 (in 3.1) for a total of 3 passes.
* Other issues to mention, but this is enough. TMPG has it's own too, but is
.. more user friendly (IMO)

Haku,
the bottom line is, you have to learn AVISynth Scripting to utilize those
items you just listed above in your 1st post. In that respect, Yes, I agree.
TMPG is better. But, for the advanced peoples w/ AVS scripting abilites, will
argue the CCE is better (and may be) I would consider myself an advanced
encoderee (w/ losts still ta learn, ie AVS scripting) but as much as I know
of scripting (enough for my encodes) I much rather prefer TMPG. At least I
can apply the 3:2 Puldown in it and not have to re-encode (even slitely) by
re-MUXing (v2.50) But, if you source is not 23.976 FILM, then you can avoide.
that extrate MUXing step, well, almost

I've done a number of TMPG 2pass vs. my own CCE's 3.1 pass and compared them
both. In the short, I've found both to be fairly the same quality. Only
CCE completed the encode in slightely less time. This test (as well as yours)
will depend on your source, and how close you match your TMPG vs. CCE
testing paramets. So, bare that in mind.
Today, I finished doing a quick encode test, CCE 3.1 pass vs. my TMPG's CQ
(like that is a real test comparison) (but, since this is hte mode I like
using most of the time, I have to make enough adjustments to at least match
what CCE is offering, in quality) anyways, and even though I feel my TMPG
test encode clip came out great, I can't help but be open and honest that CCE
w/ my 3.1 pass and settings (wont mention) came out slitely better! and I mean
slitely, given the params I used in the testings. Anywys, But, that's just
not enough for me to drop TMPG, just because the that clip came out slitely
better.
I've also test CCE's Q mode, which if I'm not mistaken is the equivalent of
TMPG's CQ mode. In any case, I did a number of tests in this area and found
TMPG's CQ mode to be much better. Just my opinion. Of course, I did use my
modified GOPS and QMatrix in all those tests, if that's not tainting things
a bit there.
Personally, I don't bother w/ 2pass (or 3.1 for that matter) I like using TMPG's
CQ or CQ_VBR modes. I've found my encodes to match CCE's 3.1 pass IMO. And,
that is my bases though limited. It's enough for me to keep using TMPG any
day. TMPG's 2pass is just too slow, but lots of configs to be played with.

But, strangely enough, I find myself going back to CCE w/ a battery of tests.
I just can't help myself! he, he... This is my hobby and my entertainment,
and it's rewarding at times.

In the short, in my opinion, I think that CCE is the better encoder (qualitywise)
No matter what you through at it, unless you use other tacticks (like my GOPS
and QMatrix for ie) in your other encoder ie, TMPG, ...well, CCE will always win
in quality. Hell, it better be for the $2000 price tag. NO-ONE better be
better, else CCE will hear of it. However, flexibility goes to TMPG.

I'm always testing CCE vs. TMPG every day or so. Funny how I always end up
using TMPG.

My opoligies if I upset anyone here. I was sharing my most current experiences
with you all, but I wanted to be honest as possible. Wasn't easy, he, he...
And, like you said, that just your opinion, and the above is mine

Have a nice day.

-vhelp

[snowmoon]

You can also...

Load into TMPGenc, set up all of your filters and stuff, save your TMPGenc project file and then use VFAPI COnverter to make a psuedo .avi file. Load the .avi in CCE and use one pass VBR.

Speed of CCE filters of TMPGenc.

Don't forget to turn down the Image complexity setting to 5-15ish since the default is way too high for bitrate constrained encoding for SVCD or low bitrate DVD.

[vhelp]

Haku,
You may wanna have a look at this link. I had to did it up
cause I needed it, so I did a quick search for ya (and me) Its all about
AVISynth scripting and has a number of interesting uses to sift through.

Truman has put this together, and the users have contibuted as well.
Have a looksees, should be some interesting reading, anyways.
--> How to edit with Avisynth

snowmoon gave a good tip. I've gone the *.tpr route too. In fact,
I found it better to use TMPG's color filtering tool better than using what's
in AVISynth or Vdub (pending on how you're frameserving) I prefer to be
able to see just how the video clip is being affected by using TMPG's color
filter, and being able to see it (in overlay mode) This feature is not as
easy using only AVISynth and poping it into media player. Too many of
toosing and turning, if you know what I mean.

In any case, I also prefer to mount my AVS script into vdub so I can see
for myself just how much the video is affected by previewing frame by
frame or play a little of the video, etc. The price to pay for all this added
flexibility is speed. Remember, the more you frameserve into other
frameserves, the more the drain will be when frameserving into the desired
encoder.

Ok, so, what is my prefered route then? Simple. I prefere the slitely
slower route when feeding my captures:
Source -> AVS script -> vdub -> CCE or TMPG

Oh, and if you're utilizing over a network, as I am at time, it also adds
to the slow encodes. So, if possible, try and avoide networking if at all
possible.

-vhelp

[wulf109]

There's one thing that Tmpeg can do that CCE cannot. You can open your vob files directly in Tmpeg and encode without having to frameserve.

[Haku]

I see a nice lot of replys here.To b onest i think i will stick with tmpgenc.I dont really have the time,or should i say be bothered to mess about with CCE and AVISynth scripting.As from what i understand after 3 or 4 pass' the difference in quality is bearly noticeable,and that the quality difference with tmp and cce aint that much difference ,CCE maybe giving a better picture.

The couple of svcds that ive encoded have come out very crisp.
I have the TCF rip of Eight legged freaks,they encoded that with CCE 3 pass' and i compeared that to a svcd i had done with the same sort of motion and to my eyes i could really see much of a difference.Ok fair enough it wasnt the same film but just to give me an idea.

The only prob with tmpgenc is it does take a little longer.

But this is just my opinion.

ps. there is no way on earth that i payed to use the full version of CCE.I would never pay that sort of money for a program.

[bbb]

Don't sweat it Haku, Tmpgenc is a very good quality MPEG 1/2 encoder and has great functions (accurate trimming, reframing, superb noise reduction, sound encoding with external apps, volume adjustment, etc). Price is also very reasonable.

The speed avantage of CCE is overblown. I've done speed tests (Tmpgenc 2.57 vs CCE 2.50) encoding captured and extensively filtered video from VirtualDub to CCE and to Tmpgenc. Using 2-pass VBR mode and using SVCD resolution, CCE may give a 20% speed advantage at most. When using CBR mode and not changing the resolution (e.g., encoding in full DVD resolution at CBR), CCE may have a larger speed advantage, but not so for SVCDs/CVDs.

November 4, 2002 Update:
*Please read carefully Adam, I did say that CCE is faster but after using multiple VDub filters to clean up VHS video (SmartDeinterlace, Blur, Sharpen, HiSmoother, Unsharp mask, FlaxenVHS filter, Smart Resize) and frameserving, CCE in 2-pass VBR mode is not twice as fast as Tmpgenc, only 20% at most. The reason is that the "limiting reagent" (the slowest link) is mainly the VDub filters and not the encoder. I've done extensive speed tests to prove this case with CCE 2.50. The later versions of CCE may offer speed advantages but I did mention the version number in my initial post.
*However, when you feed a raw AVI to CCE vs Tmpgenc and encode in CBR mode, then CCE approaches the "twice as fast" as Tmpgenc speed. But of course encoding in CBR mode is mainly for people making DVDs. Moreover, I did mention that CBR mode and not resizing makes CCE faster. Please read before you jump to argue a moot point.

[adam]

bbb you are doing something very wrong. It does not matter what your source is or how you are encoding, CCE is much faster than TMPGenc. On average it is literally more than twice as fast as the latest version of TMPGenc.

The speed advantage is not overblown, if anything it is trivialized because many people do not understand how to use CCE properly.

TMPGenc is an exceptional encoder and for the price it cannot be beat. But it is a readily testable, and well known fact that CCE is at least twice as fast.

[poopyhead]

if CCE is so expensive, how can anyone here afford to blow that much money on an encoder?

unless......

[banjazzer]

I fully agree with adam here. Although I don't really notice a quality improvement with CCE (I may not be using it optimally) I mainly tended to use CQ mode with TMPG because 2-pass VBR took so long - typically twice as long as 3-pass VBR with CCE.

And as to the lack of features with CCE, as has been already pointed out, you can incorporate all of TMPG's filters into CCE encoding by going via a TMPG project file. So you have the versatility of TMPG and much improved encoding times. 8)

[Haku]

Ok so CCE is faster,but i think i'll stick with tmpgenc as ive seen encodings done with CCE and i could really see any difference in quality.

But as i said b4 thats my own opinion.Every has there own opinion.


p.s. poopyhead,i think your on the right track as to how poeple get the software that cost alot

[boss]

while cce is much faster than tmpgenc, it is less user friendly and has less settings than tmpgenc. you can't even change the resolution with cce for god's sake! having said that i still use cce, but if only tmpgenc was faster...

[banjazzer]

it is less user friendly and has less settings than tmpgenc

This is hardly a problem when you can incorporate TMPG's settings as already outlined.

Incidentally, why would you want to change SVCD resolution?

[energy80s]

For CVD (352x576) files?

[banjazzer]

I see. In which case, presumably you would load your CVD template in TMPG and then save a project file?

[bbb]

Poophead, Haku,

I'm curious too.

Why don't we conduct a poll.

CCE SP/Pro Legitimate Owner Poll:
Those on this thread (moderators are free and encouraged to join in) who have purchased CCE with VBR functions enabled (e.g., CCE SP-$1950, CCE Pro-even more) from a legitimate source (e.g., straight from Cinemacraft.com) and without sharing the software or cost with others (which requires additional licenses) post "aye."

[banjazzer]

Nothing better to do? Why not watch a game show on TV?

[snowmoon]

I really dont like where this warez dicussion is headed. If you have an non-DVD ripping related questions you should post them in the feedback forum.