TMPGenc Vs. CCE ?

[defense]

I have been using TMPGenc with good results, but I keep hearing CCE is much quicker, etc. It takes anywhere between 9 and 14 hours for the encoding process for TMPGenc. The question I have is how much faster is CCE on "average" then TMPGenc. For example, let say it takes 10 hours for TMPGenc to encode "Spiderman", how long would it take for CCE to encode "spiderman"? I know there might not be an exact answer, but I'm just looking for an approximate to see if it would be worth getting CCE. Also, is the quality of CCE the same as TMPGenc? If I could save a couple of hours or more using CCE and get the same quality results, it would be worth it. I'm hoping someone will let me know.

[Treebeard]

http://www.vcdhelp.com/comparison

read this it gives how long and other stats of each encoder

[boss]

cce is much quicker than tmpgenc. encoding a 2 hour film to vcd like spiderman on my pc would take tmpgenc 8 hours and cce only a little over 2 hours. if you have a very fast pc cce will encode quicker than realtime! quality wise i would say that cce is as good as tmpgenc with regards to mpeg2. some people say however, that tmpgenc is better at mpeg1 than cce.

[Xtasy2002]

The difference is about $1000..

Only a professional who does nothing other than encoding movies would want to pay $1000+ for an encoding tool.

Quality wise they are very close, speed is the only factor.

[BJ_M]

the $$ diff is $2000 .... the latest version of TMPGenc is about 15-20% slower than CCE (but on a hyperthreaded dual xeon system) VBR 2p set on both ...


the comparison chart should really be updated to all the versions listed to the latest versions .. not every time but at least when a major revision comes out .. tmpgenc 2.59 is a lot faster than 12j listed there ..

the price for CCE has dropped also as what's on that otherwise superb chart

[defense]

thanks all of you for your replies! I did not realize the price of CCE, lol..that's crazy, I think I'll just buy the DVD's I really want for that price...lol...thanks again for all of the info, that time differential is much, much quicker. I will check out that link, I appreciate all of the info. It is very helpful!

[adam]

Sorry BJ_M but those numbers are way off. On anything but a dual processor system CCE is still about twice as fast as the latest version of TMPGEnc. With dual processors, I don't know I'm not that rich.

[BJ_M]

Sorry BJ_M but those numbers are way off. On anything but a dual processor system CCE is still about twice as fast as the latest version of TMPGEnc. With dual processors, I don't know I'm not that rich.

i said

(but on a hyperthreaded dual xeon system)

i dont know on a single because i dont have any around .. but the same should apply on the p4 3.0+ w/ hyperthreading .

[adam]

Ok my mistake.

[BJ_M]

i just timed them both ... 2pass vbr 9000 6000 2000 mid setting difficulty on CCE

same setting on TMPGEnc w/ motion estimate search

both using the same avi sample 720 x 480 ..

CCE 2000 frames of uncompressed avi 2:56 min

TMPGenc 2000 frames of uncompressed avi 3:14 min

that only about 5% diff. on that speed run ..

Tmpgenc size of file 45.6 MB (47,867,134 bytes)

CCE size of file 47.6 MB (49,956,516 bytes)

[banjazzer]

I did not realize the price of CCE, lol..that's crazy,

Just be aware that not everyone pays the full price for CCE. If your interest is professional, then I am sure the price is about right.

[adam]

BJ_M don't forget that alot of people, like myself, do not use divx as a source. With a DVD source CCE can keep it YUV, whereas TMPGenc cannot. This can increase CCE's encoding speed by up to %30.

There is no question that TMPGenc has better support for dual processors and that certainly narrows the gap in encoding speed between the two encoders. But for the vast majority of users, CCE is ridiculously faster than TMPGenc. When you buy CCE this is the main thing you are paying for; speed.

[BJ_M]

adam you are right on that score .. with CCE you are paying for speed AND quality ... but at a differance in price of $1950 .. if it were just speed i would use Main Concept only in CBR only as it is now faster than CCE in that mode (again w/ dual system).

i dont use divx at all -- mostly sgi, targa, cin and other file types accually .... i work only with uncompressed or lossless compression avi (QT) using the Microcosm 64bit codec . this a great codec and its cheap really.
http://www.digitalanarchy.com/product_micro.html


im not sure what you mean on "With a DVD source CCE can keep it YUV, whereas TMPGenc cannot." ,,, all mpeg encoders encode in YUV space and TMPGenc is no exception ... you can set color space in TMPGenc for YUV (component) as a video format also .. what do you mean ?

[adam]

TMPGenc accesses your vobs/d2v file through VFAPI which only supports RGB. If you have a YUV source it must first be converted to RGB before it is encoded in TMPGenc. This is why when you frameserve to TMPGEnc with avisynth you should/may have to include the convert to RGB command. There are several different ways you can convert to RGB before TMPGenc encodes it (dvd2avi, VFAPI, avisynth) but however you do it, it takes time.

CCE on the other hand will accept and encode in YUV and skip the RGB conversion. Try frameserving to CCE with the convert to RGB line included and then take it out and see what an incredible difference in speed it makes.

[BJ_M]

i see your point and a good one ... i dont need to frame serve that way very often ... so it wasnt a issue ,

[comet_104]

Hey defense:

If you are having such good luck with tmpgenc I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on it.

comet...my email is comet_104@yahoo.com

[q1aqza]

BJ_M wrote:

same setting on TMPGEnc w/ motion estimate search

To obtain the best quality from TMPG Most people use the much slower high quality (not highest) setting rather than the motion estimate search. If you get a chance it would be interesting to see how that setting compares in speed.

[banjazzer]

And some think TMPG's highest quality mode is CQ.

[BJ_M]

CQ is never used for production renders .. but it is used for tweaking sometimes.

CCE will whip Tmpgenc with tmpgenc set to slow -- for sure , i check later as i cant do anything speed wise as i have long thing going on. but i rendered same section anyway for a quality check.

as for quality -- in first test CCE was the winner , as at 600% blow up a scene the cce was still smooth and a lot of detail and non blocky of the cgi (background film was same on all pretty well - it was a super16 transfer - so not great to begin with) , at the same degree of blow up tmpgenc (at motion estimate) was just starting a little break up and colours were blotchy (a little).. with tmpgenc set at slow seting - the quality had more detail (which accually showed upo some of the pixels in the cgi parts , which made the cce version look smoother - though accually not as detailed (in other words the cce was more visually pleasing though not as detailed) on that one scene were i took pics . it (tmpg slow) was more broken than on motion est. .. (i'm using a explosion scene as the test with cgi comp'd over a film live element) ... speed was only slightly slower by 4 seconds though than other tmpgenc test.

so i re-did the test with main concept which of course was fastest (at ther recomended settings for motion search)- due to its only 1 pass VBR rendering ( 1:11 it took), but the quality was nearly same as TMPGenc even on that setting IMO .. and colors on MC was very very good .. re-did main concept with all motion search maxed out -- time went to 1:50 but the qualty is first rate -- though not the file size.

ill post some shot links if anyone wants ..

[Thorn]

BJ_M: From the comparisons you've done in the past (and here) it looks like you rank (for pure quality) them as CCE, TMPGenc, then Main Concept. From a practical standpoint (consumers buying just one of them) how big is the difference between them? It's nice to go for top quality, bar-none, but if you're just making home movies (and are patient) is TMPGenc close enough to make the difference hard to notice?
Yes, I should burn the samples you posted a while ago (now that my new Pioneer player can read RW... crappy Apex) and compare them, but what about in general? It'd be nice to say that if you can't afford CCE that you can still get 99% from TMPGenc. Or if that's not the case, it'd be nice to know that if you got CCE you would notice the difference. Once again, this is from the non-professional standpoint.

[BJ_M]

some of the problem is that a lot of my encoding is done at high def and of course CCE doesnt go there ..

MOST of the quality in any encoder is dependent on the source material ..

CCE jumped ahead a lot in my books for usefullness because now it excepts frames (targa files) ...

for all around versitility you can not beat TMPGenc .. it can do just about anything and the quality 'when the correct settings are used' is excellent -- it sure can do a great job on high def material let me tell you ..

for speed and consistant results and the fact that you can batch mode all your little clips into one file -- main concept is really good , and with the next release in a week or two will have the missing multipass VBR ..
Main concept also does a really good job re-compressing directly mpg and dv files .. they are certainly working the bugs out of it .. and really replacing ligos as the built in encoder in a lot of products.
i have ligos with hardware acceleration encoding built in to my velocity hd system and i dont use it ..

CCE does absoluty really really good encoding ... and in most cases can produce the best results "out of the box" -- but as it goes without saying that if people here acccually had to purchase a encoder - CCE would be far down the list. ..

as i mentioned before - many places (well a lot of the just use a hardware encoder and the results often show it) as animation studios and film work is accually encoded with TMPGenc .. in fact several of the large Japan animation houses use it exclusivly for output to dvd ..

i rather see mpeg gettng pushed down to only consumeer use on dvd and also as the de-facto standard for broadcast - while high end digital cinema wcompletly go the wavlet route .. who knows ..

[mojo]

BJ_M

It's nice to have a professional encoder here to chime in, I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions!

I've been using TMPGenc for a while now, and there are still a few points about it's features that no one can seem to agree on. I'd like to know what your thoughts are:

- Which is better, 2-Pass VBR or CQ mode? Some people swear by 2-Pass, others snicker and insist CQ is faster and equal in quality.

- Is motion estimate search better than 'high quality (slow)' mode? Can you give even a simple explanation of what this feature does exactly? Does it improve picture quality or does it actually apply to how fast motion is rendered?

- As an expert, what settings would YOU use in TMPGenc to produce the highest quality MPG 2 file?


Thanks for helping out!

[banjazzer]

Which is better, 2-Pass VBR or CQ mode? Some people swear by 2-Pass, others snicker and insist CQ is faster and equal in quality.

The best way to establish this is to pick a movie clip, encode, and compare results. I haven't done this personally, as I have always been more than happy with both modes, although less happy about the time 2-pass VBR takes.

You've been around a while, so you can't have missed some of the heated *debates* that go on from time to time on this subject. At the risk of starting another one, 2-pass VBR is constrained by the bitrate you give it, so if you get this wrong, the encode will suffer. CQ is not (and is constrained only by the quality setting you specify), but the downside is your encoded file can be bigger than expected, and in any case is always quite difficult to predict accurately.

One thing I always mention when this topic arises is the part of TMPG's helpfile, which does seem to suggest TMPG's creators consider CQ to be the superior mode.

"When one is more concerned about picture quality than file size, one should use this mode. Using the CQ mode, one can set all of the aspects of quality to use in the encoding. This mode will guarantee a high quality movie; however, movies with many scene with rapid motion can become rather large."

[Kdiddy]

wait you hear that!?!?!.....listen... shhh

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

you hear it???

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
you got to listen very very carefully....shhhh
.
.
.
.
.
.
yep you got it, its the sound of a dead horse being beat over & over again.

[banjazzer]

I think the horse usually beat (or flogged) is the CCE vs. TMPG one. Maybe this is a horse of a different colour, or a ship that passed in the night?

Of course it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And, one man's meat is another man's poison...

[Oracle]

My few cents.....

personally I prefer the output from Tmpgenc when frame serving(DVDripping)

Ive used both CCE & Tmpgenc (over 200 DVD rips), at first I also thought CCE was better, got fooled into thinking 5 passes(CCE) is better than 2(TMPGenc), also thought something which costs over $1000 must be the best?

I find the 2-pass Tmpgenc or CQ modes better also less blocky(fades) than the CCE encodes.

No doubt CCE is an excellent and fast encoder, but the Plus version of Tmpgenc is a little faster now with the cache setting enabled.



But for DV sources I really like the output from Pro-coder.

[q1aqza]

My tuppence worth. I did my own tests a while back (TMPG 2.53 & CCE2.5) and I concluded that TMPG was better quality for my camcorder DV encoding using CQ setting - better and faster than TMPG 2-pass VBR and better but slower than CCE 3-pass VBR - with CCE I also have to restream to switch the field order back to lower.

For DVD back-ups/rips I use CCE, quality appears better (to my eyes) than TMPG and on a long movie the speed advantage of CCE is fantastic.

[BJ_M]

i hear good things about Pro-coder -- but thier demo is a old version it looks like while the features i would like to try are in the newest version 1.3 only ...

the debate about which is better could go on forever-- suffice to say both are very good.

[SatStorm]

ahh....
VBR, CCE, TMPGenc....
Here we go again!

Anyway, CCE is better, let say about 05 - 10% TMPGenc in picture blockness. For typical DVD backups @ standard bitrates, you won't see a difference. Really....
It is also much faster! This is the true benefit of CCE. It is way faster!

From the other hand, TMPGEnc creates somehow sharper picture. Also, it is not only an encoder. It is many things. It is an all in one solution.
The latest verion 2.59 is significally better previous ones!

The motion estimate search mode of TMPGenc is excellent. Almost as good as the Highest Quality mode. There is a 5% difference and it is identical the High Quality mode. This is not a rule, since there are other things to concern also (source type, etc). But for the most of the times, that is true. I strongly suggest this mode for mainstream use!

About CQ and multipass VBR
CQ works excellent in TMPGEnc. It seems to be the favorite mode of the creator of TMPGenc. It eliminates a motion blurness you see on the 2 Pass VBR mode, if you don't set the "No motion search for still picture part by half pixel" (which if you use, you have some other kind of noise). Also, if you feed a lot of bitrate, you have no blocks and noise.
2 Pass VBR is better. But to be better, the encoder must handle this mode correct. CCE do this better TMPGEnc. In TMPGenc, you need a carefull program of all the encoding elements to succeed good results. It is not an easy task to do and also it is very affected by the TMPGenc version. So, many end up against 2 pass VBR and I can't really blame them.
That doesn't mean it is the nature of multipass VBR to blame, it is the encoder. With CCE you don't have those kind of problems.
The other benefit of CQ, is the speed.
I use CQ only when I am on the Hurry and I don't care for the results to be perfect. With 2 Pass VBR, I have perfect results, on the TMPGenc versions I know well. Latest version is a good one IMO.

So, the answer to your question is: If you want an overall solution, TMPGenc is better. If you want Speed, CCE is the way to go. If you want quality, you can't say really. For Blocks, CCE is better. For Sharpness, TMPGenc is better. What counts more for you?
About price, there is nothing to beat TMPGEnc. It is not only an encoder: It is a generall mpeg 1 and 2 tool. You have to use it one way or other.

The only true answer is that as a product, TMPGenc is far better anything else. As an encoder, is close enough to the top.
The choice is always yours

[xed]

Let's think about this, folks...
CCE costs $2000.
TMPGenc costs $50.
Question: How much faster a computer can you buy with $200 and still have enough money left over for a vacation to Acapulco?
So if you want to encode 3 times as fast, why not just burn $1000 on a computer that's 3 times as fast and use TMPGenc, and spend the other $1000 on cold margaritas and hot babes...?