CCE....

[tgpo]

Never used it, I'm a mac user.

[baker]

You dont know what your missing TGpo, CCE is an absoloute amazing tool . Maybe pcs are plauged with bugs and shite. but you can't beat the wealth of programs availble for them.

baker

[Heavensent]

it has its upsides and downsides.
i use it because its fast, and it does a good job at that.
but its not a friendly program.

if only we had tmpeg's Gui on it....

[baker]

everybodys always complaining about CCES Gui, well first off you could use docce4u over at doom9. but second of all I think CCEs GUI is better than tmpegenc. Much cleanre and easier to understand.

baker

[Heavensent]

i disagree.
cce is much harder to grasp.
if you put a guy who doesnt understand much about video
and the only thing he wants is to make a simple vcd/svcd,
he will have difficult time trying to understand what to do with cce.

granted - for someone who DOES know what he is doing, it wouldnt be so hard.

but, take me for an example, i use cce alot for about a year now.
and still i feel much more comfrtable with tmpeg.
dont forget that cce needs avisynth to have decent filtering,
and tmpeg has pretty good filters built in.

[flaninacupboard]

i always find with TMPGenc i have to check each screen in the setup at least twice before i press encode, becausr there's so many things to check and set (i've had "damn, my aspect was 4:3 704X576 instead of just 4:3!" and "Crap! did i leave source range on?! is that why it's too short??" or "why is half the picture missing?! damn! clip frame was on!!" "what the hell, why is it 24fps?! oh...." etc.) wheras cce it's always "plonk in average bitrate, check clock, yep i've got time for 4 passes, click go and go to bed"
the speed is great, i love the extra passes, and if i had the time the manual bit rate options would be very useful. all too often i watch a backup/project and there's -one- scene i'm not happy with. this is life......

[seinman]

Pffft, software smoftware. I encode my VCDs and DVDs with a pencil, paper, and slide rule.

[Quigonsean]

Slide Rule! Man your lucky I'm still stuck using an abbacus.

[Marco33]

i always find with TMPGenc i have to check each screen in the setup at least twice before i press encode, becausr there's so many things to check and set (i've had "damn, my aspect was 4:3 704X576 instead of just 4:3!" and "Crap! did i leave source range on?! is that why it's too short??" or "why is half the picture missing?! damn! clip frame was on!!" "what the hell, why is it 24fps?! oh...." etc.) wheras cce it's always "plonk in average bitrate, check clock, yep i've got time for 4 passes, click go and go to bed"
the speed is great, i love the extra passes, and if i had the time the manual bit rate options would be very useful. all too often i watch a backup/project and there's -one- scene i'm not happy with. this is life......

Yeah, I agree with you. There is just too much crap to forget when using Tmpegnc.

[bunyip]

seinman and Quigonsean, how do your methods compare in speed with TMPGEnc?

But onto CCE..
I agree that the interface is directed at the experienced user, I recall the first time I ran it, staring at the screen trying to locate the 'Add movie' button.

I tend to use it now for most MPEG2 encodes and I now like the simplistic approach they have taken to GUI. The configuable options are there but out-of-the-way, the defaults are fine for the majority of encodes and the documentation (when I bother to read it) is adequate.

The quality of the encoded MPEG is one of the best, and it's fast. I just wish it had native resize and de-interlace.

[Poplar]

I always like CCE's simple GUI, underneath which lies many powerful functions. Once you are used to it, you wouldn't want it any other way.

Actually, I believe MainConcept's GUI is an imitation of CCE, which is a good thing.

On the other extreme, Canopus Procoder's GUI is so stylish that it makes me dizzy. I know it's good, but that GUI is so unprofessional.

[Doggiedaddy]

but second of all I think CCEs GUI is better than tmpegenc. Much cleanre and easier to understand.
baker

Got to disagree about the GUI and interface.

I love CCE and think its dope, but you have to be kidding about the GUI interface being better than TMPGEncPlus, and docce4u yea right. For a newbie finding out how to frameserve a .d2v and audio properly with the use of correct filters ect. Via AviSynth is a [PITA]. Not to mention the proper use of .ecl files and advanced VBR settings. And for a home user the $50.00US v/s $2000.00US for SP, come on lets be realistic [I do not like the basic version] even though I bought it I do not use it. I thought I would throw that in before someone says yea but they make a $50.00 dollar version. Basic version is just that, basically not CCE any more, too many functions missing therefore very basic.

justmy2cents
Dd

[disturbed1]

Actually, I believe MainConcept's GUI is an imitation of CCE, which is a good thing.

Brent Beyeler copied most of it over from BBMpeg when he joined the Main Concept team.

CCE is pretty good. For the price they want it could be so much better.
It's fast, faster than real time for each pass. To get anything good out of it, you need 3-5 passes. The speed advantage goes away.

I find myself using TMPGenc beta 12 most often, then LSX, and lastly Main Concept. I tend to work mostly with YUY2, DV, and some MJPEG sources.

CCE is good, but the others are eaiser on my eyes, and wallet.

Pro Coder, didn't do anything special for me.

Panasonic has one of the best mpeg1 encoders. The mpeg2 encoder just sucks at sub 3000 bit rates, above that, it pretty nice, but lacks sharpness, speed is pretty slow. The output is unpredictable. It encodes the same source differently each time.

[energy80s]

Never liked CCE and therefore never use it. Very unhelpful little programme. TMPGenc is very user friendly in that you can see immediately (in the little preview window) if you've got the correct aspect ratio or start point. Also very easy to change and edit video with TMPGenc, CCE needs to be frameserved to.

[adam]

CCE is pretty good. It's fast, faster than real time for each pass. To get anything good out of it, you need 3-5 passes. The speed advantage goes away.

I think your results are entirely attributable to your source though. I don't like CCE for DV, and don't like it in general for interlaced footage. This is not CCE's strong point. Granted, for its pricetag it should do everything well, but I've learned that when it comes to mpeg encoding one should never discriminate. Depending on what I'm doing I may use any number of different encoders, but for the majority of my material I keep coming back to CCE. For progressive footage, I think the results are exactly the opposite as what you are experiencing.

First off, Custom Technology themselves say that anything past 4 passes, regardless of source, probably won't increase quality, and I agree. At 4 pass VBR I can still complete a CCE encode faster than I can complete a 2-pass VBR encode in TMPGenc. Furthermore, a 1 pass or 2 pass encode in CCE, looks better to my eyes than a 1 pass or 2 pass encode in TMPGenc, respectively. I would argue that with progressive footage, CCE's speed advantage over TMPGenc never goes away.

My methods:
DVD backup to SVCD or DVD-R=CCE
DVD backup to VCD=Panasonic Mpeg1 encoder
DVD backup to xVCD=TMPGenc
DV to SVCD or DVD-R=Procoder.

[adam]

Never liked CCE and therefore never use it. Very unhelpful little programme. TMPGenc is very user friendly in that you can see immediately (in the little preview window) if you've got the correct aspect ratio or start point. Also very easy to change and edit video with TMPGenc, CCE needs to be frameserved to.

To each his own, but these criticisms aren't accurate. CCE also has a preview window built in to the program, and its much larger than TMPGenc's. If you want to have a preview during the encoding process there is an avisynth filter for that. CCE will accept avi files directly and, though you have to frameserve when encoding from a DVD source, the same is true with TMPGenc. Sure TMPGenc can load lots of files directly but it uses the direct show filter to do so, and that's what causes all these problems with audio sync that people complain about.

[q1aqza]

Before the likes of DVD2One and DVd Shrink I used CCE for all my DVD backups but these programs are just sooo convenient and fast that CCE is now on the shelf for me.

Like Adam, I also never liked the results for DV encoding so I used to use TMPG for DV - but now I use Adobe Mpeg Encoder (MainConcept) for DV.

I'm just glad I never paid for CCE !!

[Ciuko]

Well i use CCE 2.5 SP for 2 years ... it's amazing ... with a double-pass bilinear cubic 0.33 setting i get superb quality ... difficult to see the difference between original dvd and compressed one on my 32'' Hitachi Natura TV.
:P

P.s.: DVD2ONE is a crap!!!!!

[energy80s]

Never liked CCE and therefore never use it. Very unhelpful little programme. TMPGenc is very user friendly in that you can see immediately (in the little preview window) if you've got the correct aspect ratio or start point. Also very easy to change and edit video with TMPGenc, CCE needs to be frameserved to.

To each his own, but these criticisms aren't accurate. CCE also has a preview window built in to the program, and its much larger than TMPGenc's. If you want to have a preview during the encoding process there is an avisynth filter for that. CCE will accept avi files directly and, though you have to frameserve when encoding from a DVD source, the same is true with TMPGenc. Sure TMPGenc can load lots of files directly but it uses the direct show filter to do so, and that's what causes all these problems with audio sync that people complain about.

You seem to need AVISynth to do anything much with CCE. With TMPG its a good self contained little programme. I mainly convert DV captured footage which would be interlaced and don't use multipass VBR, so I suppose the difference in quality between the two encoders would be minimal.

[baker]

always find with TMPGenc i have to check each screen in the setup at least twice before i press encode, becausr there's so many things to check and set (i've had "damn, my aspect was 4:3 704X576 instead of just 4:3!" and "Crap! did i leave source range on?! is that why it's too short??" or "why is half the picture missing?! damn! clip frame was on!!" "what the hell, why is it 24fps?! oh...." etc.) wheras cce it's always "plonk in average bitrate, check clock, yep i've got time for 4 passes, click go and go to bed"

fiannly somebody who agrees with me!!!

Tmpegencs built in filters arent worth it, too slow. avitsynths the main ticket.

Baker

[EddyH]

Flaninacupboard, I can't figure out why that simplicity with CCE is an advantage; you can do that 'simple plonk' because it does all the clipping, aspect ratio etc automatically (and therefore reading your mind?), or just because it doesn't offer those options - or you don't ever use them?

After all source range and clip frame wouldn't be left turned on from your last TMPGEnc session if you hadnt actually made use of them in that session. The program assumes you want to keep the same settings until you make a point of changing them after all - imagine how annoying it would be if you had an encode go wrong only to find everything had reset and you had to set it all up again.

You can just point and shoot with TMPG too. Either with the wizard, or just ensuring that all the fancy options are off, drag & drop the source into the window, then either load the VCD preset (which itself precludes turning off most options) and/or open up settings to change your bitrate to the desired one. Then press "Start".

....resists urge to add a 'duh' to the end....

Sure i've made a number of cockups myself with Tsunami, but they've all been forgetful user error (code ID: Ten Tee). The interface is clear enough.

The one highly annoying thing I've come across with it, is how it likes to automatically change the framerate eg if you use odd-even de-interlacing (sets it to 48, 50, 60fps...) or telecine (sets it to 24/30 even if you're trying to make a 25fps film with no-convert)...

[Faustus]

There is still none better.

[flaninacupboard]

the reason i have had problems with source range, is this. if i use a captured .avi with source range settings and encode, then load up something else (say a .d2v) and open source range to check the length, swap to calculator work out my bitrate swap to the general tab and put in my bitrate, i have inadvertently left source range on and screw my encode. thus i always check every tab three or four times. the other thing i hate is -every- time i load a DV file it detects it as 4:3 704X576 which it isn't! you are right though, cce has no clip frame. but with DV or DVD this is not usually a problem. cce does have it's own source range, but it's nestled away so it never gets activated. oh, and yes TMPGenc is bad with IVTCto 24 and speed up to PAL. it's also bad with some quicktimes, thinking they're 60fps, and once or twice xvids come up as 30.00 instead of 23.976.
i do in fact still use TMPGenc, i use it process files before encoding sometimes, if i need to clip, resize, noise reduce, change aspect ratio and change frame rate, for instance

If I was a rich man... Ta la la la la la....

In other words: CCExpensive

Quality it gives SVCD/CVD is amazing, it simply knows how to use every bit to give optimal quality. I wish it had more options like resizing, and not just "half horizontal size", but using Avisynth solves it all. Also, it's too bad it doesn't give such high quality for MPEG-1, but that's where TmpgEnc comes into picture...

$1950? Even I'm not obsessed enough... Thank God for talented friends that have it...

[Cecilio]

Tmpegencs built in filters arent worth it, too slow. avitsynths the main ticket.

Baker[/quote] hey baker i see you as an advanced user with DVD2SVCD using CCE. ok i was wondering what would be the best settings to use on this screen. These are my current settings.

[seinman]

seinman and Quigonsean, how do your methods compare in speed with TMPGEnc?

The trusty pencil, paper, and slide rule method gets me about one frame per day, assuming I spend three or four hours a day working on it. Figure that NTSC is 29.97 frames per second, and your average movie is about 90 minutes long... it takes me about 443 years to do a film. So I guess TMPGEnc has quite an advantage in the speed department. 8)

[stecj]

Apologize for crashing the thread, but....

I am currently rinning CCe 2.66 for the first time on a P4 2.4 Ghz dedicated machine and only getting a speed of about .60 I am not using AviSynth to frameserve and I'm betting that's my problem, but rather than dink with it can someone confirm?

2.66 seemed like the way to go because of the lack of size limitation issue, but if the on board filters are slowing me down, I'll use avisynth. At this speed, 4 passes will take the same time as TMPG or slower.

Thanks for the help,

Stecj