Tmpgenc vs CCE

[Cole]

some people amaze me with there interpretations.

Maybe actually saying it plainly may have helped i.e. "if you have used both, which one do you prefer and why?". Why leave it to interpretation?

In answer to "Which one do you like better and why" was answered honestly with "TMPGEnc because that is what I know."

But as it happens, this thread has made me want to try CCE anyway. Thus I can later come back with a more educated answer.

[jimmalenko]

Folks, the question limits itself to people who have actually tried both and prefer one or the other. If you haven't used one of the encoders than don't vote. Don't pick one just because its the only one you recognize.

I've used CCE once, maybe twice. I didn't have enough time at the time to go through the learning curve, but from what I saw, I don't know whether I really want to. Call me stubborn/ignorant/lazy but I've got my method down-pat and I'm happy with it, so ...

... and considering that this comparison has been done to death <insert flogging a dead horse smiley here>, I must say that I'm surprised and IMO it's kinda rich trying to put "restrictions" in this thread when clearly a RTFM / forum search is required.

[DVWannaB]

Have both encoders, TMPGEnc Plus, TMPGEnc Express & CCE Basic.

Must say that my preference is CCE Basic for these reasons:

1) Basically CCE blows away both versions of TMPG with its speed, in 2-pass and CBR.

2) While the final output files are similar visually, it seems TMPG seems to smooth images slightly and CCE reproduces the closest to the original. While smoothing is not necessarily a bad thing, I dont want my encoder to produce something I didnt ask for.

3) Filters is TMPG slows encode to a crawl. While CCE Basic 2.69 has only a deinterlacer (never used), scripting with Avisynth with appropriate and much better than TMPG filters and fed to CCE does the trick.

4) YUV and YUY2 color space used by CCE. Very important. RGB used by TMPGEnc not recommended by the video doctor

2 fine encoders, but I prefer CCE.

[monzie]

Tried both in most flavors (tmpg+ and xpress) and CCE (Basic, 2.5, 2.62, 2.67, 2.7 SP trial) and I find they ALL do a good job (i mainly convert avi's).

Personally I cant see any difference worth arguing about in quality when dealing with like for like settings but for me the SPEED of CCE and the simple interface of CCE2.5 and 2.62 walk all over TMPG.

I agree that later versions of CCE are daunting (and I ADMIT that even after reading the manuals that my life is TOO SHORT to start playing with ALL CCE 2.7's settings (the number of permutations must be in the 100,000s)....so for me my perfect set up is CCE 2.5 or 2.62 (or BASIC) and FITCD/AVISYNTH.....with a few preset templates..I can be encoding within less than a minute....as for audio TMPG walks all over CCE....BUT...I dont encode audio with either CCE or TMPG I use FFMPEGGUI and re-mux at authoring.

TMPG is VERY GOOD but unfortunatley its SLOW and is NO LESS awkward to set up than CCE if you venture from the wizard (imo).

[Cole]

Kevin,

Well, I have downloaded the trial version.

I like the collection of the basic controls all on one screen and have to admit that they are less complicated than using TMPGEnc (unless using the TMPGEnc's Wizard).

I did a small and quick comparison (as the trial will allow) which I hope may be useful.

The encode speed on a 2 minute AVI to convert to MPEG 1 @ 1,150 kps (p4 2.8Ghz):

TMPGEnc took 2 minutes 11 seconds
CCE took 36 seconds

Here is where the (for me and I must stress that - for me) the benefit ends. The TMPGEnc picuture was far better than with CCE. Considerably less artifacts/smoother picture. CCE has moving macroblocks where there was no need to be any i.e. single colour on the BBC One logo.

I can see this being a problem with VHS conversions.

I have done a couple of screen shots to show the difference (enlarged by 150%). These may be valuable (or may not be), but I just wanted to back up my reasons.

CCE (as if you couldn't work that out )


TMPGEnc


I hasten to add, that a .jpg doesn't do the difference justice but I think you can make out what I am referring to on the man's face.

Where I can see CCE being useful for me is when creating a VCD for a CD-RW - watch once then reuse as the speed of the encode is really good.

So here I echo Winifred in sugesting that you download the free trial and see what you think about the results for yourself. It also may be an idea to do more than the quick experiment I did as maybe I came to an all too quick conclusion - but I won't be giving up on CCE just yet

[adam]

Well that is at least a good example of why you should just use your own eyes as a test. Cole, I find your TMPGenc pic to be noticably lower in quality than the CCE one. Its soooo blurry. Look back at your source clip. If it has that same noise you don't like than CCE actually did the better job. An encoder cannot distinguish between what is noise and what is wanted detail. If an encoder removes noise at default settings than that is a bad thing, because it means it is throwing out fine details. The better encoder keeps the noise, along with the detail. Its up to you to decide whether to use noise reduction, not the encoder.

Anyway, added noise is a common complaint of CCE, either its mosquito noise or its contour noise. The reason is because it is very easy to use extreme bitrate settings via its image quality priority setting (called something slightly different in later versions.) Adjusting this per your source and your bitrate alleviates this problem.

[Cole]

The source appeared to be quite clean. It was an off air capture from an analouge television signal.

Upon playback, the CCE picture was what I can only describe as "Fizzy". Is that what was meant by Mosquito nosie?

[adam]

Probably. Mosquito noise looks like little hovering black and white dots, usually around edges. You'll see them most prominantly on the tops of peoples heads and shoulders. I see them a little bit on the outside of that guy's shoulder in your pic, but they aren't bad. The antithesis would be contour noise. You get it in areas of solid or similar color and it creates kind of a haze. The best way I can describe it is what you see when looking at the air above a hot highway. In any case, CCE lets you prioritize one over the other, and if you use a reasonable setting there is no reason why either should be visible provided you are using a decent amount of bitrate. Using your example bitrate of 1.50mbits, I'd definitely expect to get one or the other unless you used some noise reduction to make the source more compressible.

Maybe try adding some light noise reduction to your CCE encodes if you use such a low bitrate, because CCE does not soften nearly as much as TMPGenc does.

But once again, its a perfect example of why other people's opinions of encoding quality don't matter much. Going just by those two pics, we come to completely different conclusions as to their quality.

[W_Eagle]

For me, audio quality and compatibility is as important as video quality. I mostly capture movies to avi from cable and satellite, convert to DVD. Using TMPGEnc Xpress (Constant Quality, which is 1 pass VBR) with AC3 plugin gives me all the quality I ask for in both audio and video. Plus, it's faster than encoding video with CCE and audio with Sony Vegas -- ffmpeggui is out of the question for me as for both audio quality and computability.
Indeed, I have done my learning curve way back with TMPGEnc Plus, encoding SVCD, or actually CVD. I tried CCE few times and didn't see anything worth my while to go over the learning curve with it. Especially when I use TMPGEnc Xpress to encode both video and audio.

Edited:
I didn't vote since I'm not really familiar with CCE.

[Gurm]

My big complaint with CCE has always been - and continues to be - the utter lack of settings. I have no desire to learn another scripting language.

That said, it can be automated quite well. DVD-Rebuilder has breathed new life into my desire to continue to own CCE.

[adam]

With all due respect Gurm, the last time you said that it was discovered that you had yet to even FIND the settings tab in CCE.

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=256059&highlight=rtfm

It cannot reasonably be said that CCE lacks settings options, when it in fact has MORE settings available than any of the other encoders mentioned in this thread, or just about any other encoder on the market.

As for scripting, I don't even know what you mean by that. Avisynth scripting is not any more necessary for encoding in CCE than it is for any other encoder. Can you give me an example of an encoding operation that you can perform in, say TMPGenc, that you cannot perform in CCE without using Avisynth? Seriously, how is there any difference?

Gurm, if these aren't enough settings for you then I don't know what would be:

[Cole]

I really think that the only way I can get to know CCE to the level of proper use is to buy the thing (about £30). Having to think is this worth it.

It seems then, that CCE takes a bit of practice to get right and here is the rub. With TMPGEnc I can put in an .AVI and produce an MPEG that I am happy with, without having to manipulate things too much, using the standard templates.

From what Adam is describing CCE takes a little more effort to get rid of the problems it automatically generates. If there are templates in CCE then I have yet to unearth them.

However, as I said, seems very useful for the quick MPEG-1 encode if needed as the speed saving was amazing.

[adam]

CCE's templates are available on the file loading screen or you can select them (SVCD, VCD, DVD) via the encoder settings tab. And of course you can always create and store your own.

As for the situation you describe, all I'm saying is that CCE does not soften like TMPGEnc and other encoders like Procoder do. There are plenty of other encoders similar to CCE in this regard too. For anything but low bitrate encodes you truly can just load a source and go and get adequate, though not optimal results. But since not every encode you do will have such limited bitrate, it makes sense not to soften unless you need to, IMO.

[DRP]

You guys have convinced me to expand my horizons and actually consider looking at what CCE has to offer. Afterall I think I've pretty well mastered TMPGEnc now, so maybe I need a new challenge.

Anyway, after struggling with the multitude of versions available and trying to figure out which one I should try (has a more complicated version numbering sequence for any piece of software ever been devised?), I eventually got the thing installed and running. Being experienced with TMPGEnc I figured I would be able to find my way around easily enough. No way! CCE doesn't know the meaning of the word intuitive. Quite apart from that, I still wasn't even sure I was using the 'best' or most suitable version to learn on.

In short I gave up after a couple of hours. I don't care that it's faster and that it produces equal quality results because it's just too damn hard! If the version naming/numbering sequences don't discourage you before you even download/install it, the scarily complicated UI you get afterwards will.

I think everyone can agree here that speed is the overriding advantage being put forward for CCE, but at the end of the day we're still talking hours aren't we? Video encoding is a complicated task. It's always going to be slow no matter what you use. So is the difference between 4 hours and 6 hours really significant? Both are long enough that you can't sit in front of the computer watching them to completion.

I also encode things other than DivX/XviD and Mov files. I'm not sure, but it appeared to me that CCE is limited to these file inputs only. I'm sure that can be got around with frameserving somehow, but for me, if it weren't for the version identification and GUI complexity, then that limitation would have killed it off for me in any comparison with TMPGEnc.

[Gurm]

Erm, look - I know where the GUI is. I found it. Counterintuitive getting there, but I did find it.

So let's try to do a simple operation, shall we? Continuing my "gotta change a TV episode from XVID to SVCD" example.

Now let's say we have a widescreen TV episode. The native XVID resolution is 640x352. You can't just convert it to a 480x480 SVCD - you have to add the black borders.

In TMPGEnc or Mainconcept this is easy. In Mainconcept you just click "scale and crop", set the vertical size to 352, and then hit "go". Where, exactly, is that option in CCE? Last time I checked, it involved writing some bizarre command in a script. I played with the GUI for a bit and failed to find it as well.

CCE has LOTS of options for quality, yet virtually none for some of the really common things people like to do.

Also I wouldn't call the interface "streamlined" or "minimalist". I'd call it "hodge-podge". They just took every option they could think of and threw it in there. It's CLEARLY an afterthought.

But that's OK. It's a GREAT encoder. Just don't try to sell it as user friendly or even USEFUL for mundane tasks.

[adam]

In TMPGEnc or Mainconcept this is easy. In Mainconcept you just click "scale and crop", set the vertical size to 352, and then hit "go". Where, exactly, is that option in CCE? Last time I checked, it involved writing some bizarre command in a script.

Check again please. The "Encoder Setting" tab lets you specify any output resolution you want. If you need to add letterboxing to tops or sides then click "advanced" and then use the "blanking" option. I really fail to see how this is any more difficult or less intuitive than MainConcept or TMPGenc, even if its not what you are used to.

And even if you do feel that CCE's settings are an afterthought or unintuitive, (note you just admitted that you never read the manual) how does that translate to an "utter lack of settings?" In all honesty, it sounds like you really have never used the encoder and are just attacking it based on various things you have read...as alot of people on this board tend to do. In case you can't tell, I have a problem with that.

You are entitled to your opinions but it is clear that you are just being biased and looking for ways for CCE to fail. I casually looked back and you have been bashing CCE's gui for years...literally. And then in that last thread your posts made it clear that you only just recently realized that CCE even had more to its gui than the initial loading screen, and even getting you to that point was like pulling teeth. I think your gripes about CCE are unreasonable. I think you wrote it off long ago and now just refuse to look at it objectively. Its not a perfect encoder, but it is NOTHING like you describe.

[rkr1958]

As a long time TMPGEnc Plus user, I'm now a CCE-Basic convert. I'm put several VHS tapes to DVD and CCE is just so much faster than TMPGEnc Plus. I personally can't tell any difference in quality. Also, I love using DVDRB w/CCE-Basic for some of my DVD backups.

CCE does good quality, but is very expensive ...

$48 is expensive?

CCE only encodes @ TFF, so you either have to clip 1 scan line or send your Mpeg through Restream to change the Field order flag.

What's TFF? Also, I've nevered noticed anything when watching DVDs authored using MPEG`s generated by CCE. What should I be looking for?

[winifreid]

TFF means top field first. If the source were bottom field first and was encoded TFF, you would see jitters when there is movement in the scene. I beleive you can uncheck the TFF box and it will encode BFF.

TGF edit

[thor300]

Cole, its not exactly a secret that CCE is bad with MPEG-1. Stick with TmpegEnc for VCD (or MC), CCE has always been kinda bad at that IMO.

[Gurm]

In TMPGEnc or Mainconcept this is easy. In Mainconcept you just click "scale and crop", set the vertical size to 352, and then hit "go". Where, exactly, is that option in CCE? Last time I checked, it involved writing some bizarre command in a script.

Check again please. The "Encoder Setting" tab lets you specify any output resolution you want. If you need to add letterboxing to tops or sides then click "advanced" and then use the "blanking" option. I really fail to see how this is any more difficult or less intuitive than MainConcept or TMPGenc, even if its not what you are used to.

Only if you choose to encode to straight MPEG2. How about picking SVCD and letting you modify that? I guess it amounts to the same thing, right? Just completely unintuitive. Then you have to remember all the right OTHER settings for SVCD. Bleh.

1In all honesty, it sounds like you really have never used the encoder and are just attacking it based on various things you have read...as alot of people on this board tend to do. In case you can't tell, I have a problem with that.

I use it on a regular basis - from within other applications.

You are entitled to your opinions but it is clear that you are just being biased and looking for ways for CCE to fail.

Nope. I like it, I just wish that they would make it more user friendly. Much like I really like German cars, but wish they were cheaper... and much like I appreciate the hard work put into DVD2One and the fact that it STILL yields superior transcodes, but think the authors are retarded jackasses.

I casually looked back and you have been bashing CCE's gui for years...literally. And then in that last thread your posts made it clear that you only just recently realized that CCE even had more to its gui than the initial loading screen, and even getting you to that point was like pulling teeth. I think your gripes about CCE are unreasonable. I think you wrote it off long ago and now just refuse to look at it objectively. Its not a perfect encoder, but it is NOTHING like you describe.

It's also NOTHING like other competing products. Here's the situation - CCE SP is $2500. For that amount of money you expect it to move heaven and earth, but instead it's... just like CCE Basic only with more passes. Yikes! CCE Basic is $50, and you expect it to be competitive with the cheaper versions of Procoder, or Mainconcept. But in reality it's just absurdly difficult to use. I'm not the only one that thinks so. Even longtime fans of the program admit that it's often easier to just script up what you want than to try to work the program to get it.

[ronnylov]

For DVD bitrates I get slightly better results from CCE compared to TMPGEnc. But for VCD and SVCD I like TMPGEnc more.

But I prefer Mainconcept Encoder and Procoder above both CCE and TMPGEnc. Mostly I use Mainconcept encoder.

[adam]

CCE always outputs tff footage. If your source is tff, leave the tff option unchecked (versions ~2.5) or leave the offset line set to 0 (later versions.) If your source is bff then do the reverse. CCE will crop the first scan line, effectivly making the footage tff.

Only if you choose to encode to straight MPEG2. How about picking SVCD and letting you modify that? I guess it amounts to the same thing, right? Just completely unintuitive. Then you have to remember all the right OTHER settings for SVCD. Bleh.

Sorry I was mistaken earlier. Blanking just masks. Go to picture setting and use the Letterbox option. This of course works when using any of the template, and of course if you are unhappy with any of the custom templates (which are all just compliant settings for that format) then you can always create and store your own.

[Gurm]

I just find it laughable that you can't see the other side of the fence. You're so firmly in the "it's easy and intuitive for me so it must be for everyone" camp that you can't appreciate that for 9/10 users, CCE is terminally cryptic.

[adam]

I just find it laughable that you can't see the other side of the fence. You're so firmly in the "it's easy and intuitive for me so it must be for everyone" camp that you can't appreciate that for 9/10 users, CCE is terminally cryptic.

Actually, I don't find it very intuitive in alot of ways. When others point this out I somewhat agree, and accept their opinion as just that. But you bashed the gui up and down for YEARS without trying it, and please don't try to deny this. Reading that prior post it is blatantly obvious. When you complained of no settings I asked you your process and you said you loaded the file, and then the only option you had was to hit encode. Give me a break, you'd rather complain about the gui for YEARS then spend 30 seconds reading the manual.

And now you keep bashing missing settings, again without even trying to find them. I am not arguing that CCE isn't unintuitive in many ways, I am only arguing that you have absolutely no place to judge it. Once again I will have to kindly remind you to RTFM or else refrain from this constant bashing of something that you haven't tried yet.

[thor300]

But for VCD and SVCD I like TMPGEnc more.

For me too tmpgenc is clearly better when it comes to VCD, but i have never experienced a good SVCD with tmpgenc. Was extra bad when backing up long movies to only 2 CDs, then i could see a big improvement with CCE. Anyway, havent bothered with SVCD for almost 2 years now, but still make VCDs now and then. TmpgEnc is well worth the extra time it takes for VCD.

[Gurm]

Look, now that I've tried it - it's terminally cryptic. I've done a few encodes with it, and yeah it's great. But it's still ... not for the average user. Period.

[reboot]

Yeah, what Gurm said.

[dipstick]

rkr1958 wrote:

dipstick wrote:
CCE does good quality, but is very expensive ...
$48 is expensive?

I was refering to the SP version not Basic.

I agree with Adam in the detail preservation capabilities of CCE. Of the Big Four (TMPGenc, CCE, Procoder and MainConcept), CCE wins hands down.

As for the GUI, I think Procoder has to be the worst. At least CCE allows you to set advanced parameters like Block Scan Order and DTC settings. I actually like the CCE GUI. What I don't like is the little idiosincricies like only ouputing TFF.

[winifreid]

You say it only outputs TFF, but if that were the case you would be limited to inputs that were TFF. I think you can uncheck the TFF box.

[Cole]

Cole, its not exactly a secret that CCE is bad with MPEG-1. Stick with TmpegEnc for VCD (or MC), CCE has always been kinda bad at that IMO.

This is the first time I have even looked at CCE so I wouldn't have picked up on that, but I am still considering getting CCE Basic as at the very least it may broaden my horizons as it were.