CCE, Procoder, Quenc or HCEnc: which one do you get better results?

[devilcoelhodog]

Hi, dear all.

I intend to use The FilmMachine for converting avi to DVD's.

But, in these program we have some encoder options: CCE, Procoder, Quenc and HCEnc.

Can you point me which one of them ( and your passes and configurations too ) that gave you very nice results about encoding a high quality DVD as out-put?

I'm wanna know some others opinions before chose one of them for encoding my personal tests. :P

Thank you.

devil (johner)

[freebird73717]

I have used CCE and HCenc and have not noticed a difference in the output quality. CCE is a little bit faster than HC but other than that I would say they are very close to each other. I personally use HCenc (using the best profile) for all of my encodes and find the quality very much to my liking. Best of all it's free. I can't comment on Procoder or quenc as I haven't used them.

[45tripp]

they're all excellent.

I find procoder to be best.
(proc 2 at default settings,
not as though there's much to set)

gl

[tmh]

What is the source material? DV-AVI?

[jman98]

I have an ancient version of CCE (2.5 I think) and I am somewhat biased towards that for standard definition and below encoding. I use HCenc for all high def encodes and I'm really impressed with it. I recently made a test HD DVD from a video capture I did of NBC's "The Office" in 1080i and it looks fantastic. I encoded the original broadcast (it was about 43 minutes of video when the commercials were removed - it was a 1 hour broadcast) with HCenc to fit on a single layer DVD and my test HD DVD looks terrific, as good as the original broadcast. I had to use HCenc because my ancient version of CCE can't encode anything above DVD resolution. HCenc is so good, that if someone wanted to use it all the time, I don't think they'd regret it.

[RickA]

I have been a fan of CCE in 3 pass mode for several years but recently (6 months or so) been using HCenc in best quality mode more and more. Both are great encoders and I do really like the better SMP support in HCEnc22. Not used Procoder or Quenc. I've tried FilmMachine and it worked well. You may want to give FAVC a go too, have used it with success also.

[devilcoelhodog]

What is the source material? DV-AVI?

The source material is some avi's converted from regular DVD's, using AutoGK, for example, to do this convertion.

Any more experiences, tips and feedback's concerning about the subject are nice to discuss.

Thanks in advance.

devil (johner)

[lordsmurf]

I've never been a fan of CCE. (neither full nor Basic)

Procoder 1 was a favorite, Procoder 2 is also great. (PC2 has some quirks)

My current favorite is MainConcept 1.4 and 1.5. (Use it weekly -- pretty much perfect.)

I forget if DVD Rebuilder comes with QUEnc or HCenc. I like that one too, but I only use it with DVD Rebuilder (few times per year).

[guns1inger]

DVD Rebuilder ships with both Quenc and HCEnc, as well as the ability to use CCE or ProCoder.

LS - Have you tried PC3 yet, and if so, do you have an opinion on it ?

[manono]

The source material is some avi's converted from regular DVD's, using AutoGK, for example, to do this convertion.

If you have the original DVDs, why not go back and use them as the source? If all you have is AVIs, then I don't think it makes much difference what you use as an MPEG-2 encoder, as your source is already so degraded. Whatever you use you won't get a "high quality DVD" out of it.

[45tripp]

If you have the original DVDs, why not go back and use them as the source? If all you have is AVIs, then I don't think it makes much difference what you use as an MPEG-2 encoder, as your source is already so degraded. Whatever you use you won't get a "high quality DVD" out of it.

it makes as much difference as with any other scenario.
i agree of course on the other points.


differences between these encoders aren't huge,
and with lower compression levels, even slighter.
can you tell the difference? will it matter to you?
other people can't really answer that for you.
consider this before investing your time testing.

favc is a lot sexier than filmmachine, but you can't use cce or procoder with it.

and btw,
mainconcept is shit!
thought i'd get that out in the open.

gl

[FulciLives]

I like CCE SP very much but I find that HCenc is really just as good although I still prefer CCE SP when I have a "good enough" bitrate. When I have to use what I consider to be a "low" bitrate then I give HCenc the nod as I think it does better with low or lower bitrates than CCE SP does. Also it seems impossible to do a true CBR with HCenc whereas that is possible with CCE SP and sometimes (not often) a CBR is needed and therefore I will pick CCE SP.

Let me just say though that if you can't afford CCE SP then you should be more than happy with HCenc.

As for Quenc ... I used it once a LONG time ago and did not like it. I thought the output was shit. It might be better these days but my first impression was poor and I never went back to it.

I've used TMPGEnc Plus but not in ages and I never could figure out how to properly set up MainConcept MPEG encoder and also never really got into it from way back.

So in the end it boils down to CCE SP or HCenc and which you use depends on what you are doing and how you want to do it (CBR vs VBR and low bitrate vs high bitrate) as well as I guess the money factor.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[lordsmurf]

LS - Have you tried PC3 yet, and if so, do you have an opinion on it ?

Unless Grass Valley wants to give me one to try (I doubt it, as I have no relationship with them at this time), I won't be using PC3. I'm extremely satisfied with MainConcept 1.4 / 1.5 (I have one on one system, one on the other), and I believe the price is better too. Adobe Premiere CS3 comes with the Adobe Media Encoder, which takes care of all my non-MPEG needs now too (except XVID, which I do in VirtualDub).

I actually was somewhat disappointed in PC2. It seems to have made advances in some areas, and downgrades in others. So my excitement over PC3 was non-existent. The dongle stuff was always a huge pain in the ass too, and I don't miss that at all. That's so 1980s to have a dongle.

it makes as much difference as with any other scenario.

AVI sources (i.e., crap from downloads) is already ruined. You can't see a difference in encoders like you can with clean camera-shot video or even tv recordings. When your source sucks, the encode doesn't matter as much. It'll still look bad.

mainconcept is shit!

Anybody that thinks MainConcept is bad probably has never used it or doesn't know how to set it up (and it's pretty much idiot-proof, one of the easiest around). It's a professional program used in a pro environment. It's not made for Johnny Sixpack that expects a one-click wonder.

It has really eaten into both CinemaCraft's and Procoder's market base, because it not only looks better, but because it's cheaper too. Adobe, Ulead, Sony and several others are using it with their NLE's as the embedded export method. If Apple did not have QuickTime, I bet it would be in FCP too. MC does make a Mac version, and it's quite nice, although MegaPeg.X and BitVice are players there (as well as Compressor).

[45tripp]

Also it seems impossible to do a true CBR with HCenc

it's not designed to.

you might try quenc for cbr. there's a new alpha out to play with.
good point though about cbr.
I don't do it, but if i were to look into it i'd probably turn to mencoder for a free option.

AVI sources (i.e., crap from downloads) is already ruined. You can't see a difference in encoders like you can with clean camera-shot video or even tv recordings. When your source sucks, the encode doesn't matter as much. It'll still look bad.

you seem to be suggesting all mpeg4 encodes are crap.
one encoder will still be closer to source than another,
and that still matters.

Anybody that thinks MainConcept is bad probably has never used it or doesn't know how to set it up (and it's pretty much idiot-proof, one of the easiest around). It's a professional program used in a pro environment. It's not made for Johnny Sixpack that expects a one-click wonder.

I'm not johnny sixpack.
i'm open to being convinced if you like.
provide one of these clean sources you mention and show me.


tripp

[lordsmurf]

I'm not at liberty to freely distribute the work of my clients. I don't shoot video (I'm an editor/restorer only), therefore I don't have my own sources. I'm also too busy to make tests from tv (assuming I can find a channel that is not too noisy -- unlikely).

If you search the forum, BJ_M did some tests some years ago (when PC2, MC 1.4 and CCE 2.7 were new). NOTE: The variations in MC engine use have stabilized with 1.5 from what I can tell, they all look great now. That was one observation from BJ_M's tests at that time.

I've never seen a clean MP4 download. They always have some degree of noise, with the (sometimes) exception of official movie trailers. I doubt the poster is referring to trailers, it's probably torrent garbage. There are "nicer" encodes out there, from HD dumps, from a few people, but there is still compression noise, and even the best of them tend to have a/v sync errors, darkness compression boogers, data glitches, and other problems (often due to the nature of the packeted transfers, as well as the ADD type personalities of the encoders who overtax systems while encoding). Some people are convinced these "look great", but then again, these are the same folks who consider cams to be "DVD quality" ( ), or use terms like "VHS rip" or "TV rip" (idiots -- plain damned idiots). In many cases, as SLP mode VHS tape can rival or even surpass the quality of a MP4 download.

DVD Rebuilder comes with both, but HCenc is the default (on mine, at least) and it looks fine. The other one (QuEnc, it appears) was never very good, about on par with BBMPEG and other freebies from 7+ years ago. Yuck.

[FulciLives]

DVD Rebuilder comes with both, but HCenc is the default (on mine, at least) and it looks fine. The other one (QuEnc, it appears) was never very good, about on par with BBMPEG and other freebies from 7+ years ago. Yuck.

I forgot all about BBMPEG

I used it once for making an SVCD ... or maybe it was a CVD which I was "into" for a while ... and thought it looked pretty good but I just used it that one time only. I had TMPGEnc Plus so ... it was just a "test".

It did seem that a lot of people said BBMPEG was crap ...

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[lordsmurf]

Not necessarily crap, just not really great either. It would encode noise.

[devilcoelhodog]

I've found out one "poll/opinions" about convertions using some different programs, concerning about AVI to DVD.

.:: AVI to DVD - program comparison ::.

1. Overview

This guide is intended to help you choose a method for coverting your AVI files to DVD. The resulting DVD files of the programs tested are compared based on video and audio quality, time to convert, ease of use and extras (i.e. ability to add subtitles or to create menus).

There is only one criteria used for test programs: the resulting file must be playable in a stand-alone DVD player without the need to further author the DVD.

Default settings were used on all programs, unless otherwise specified. NTFS to PAL converting was not tested, nor were menus and chapters as not all programs support this (though the ability to create menus and chapters are both scored).

The same .avi file is used in all programs tested, a 10 minute clip from Spiderman 2.

I used a 10 minute file so you can use the "time to convert" criteria in the test results to figure out approximately how long it may take you to convert a video file of any length (do you know your 6x times tables?).


-The test file-

File Name ..........: N7_TEST.avi
Total Size (MB) ....: 123.13 MB
Total Streams ......: 2 Stream(s)

Video Size (MB) ....: 90.97 MB
Video Length .......: 00:10:02
Video Codec Name ...: XviD MPEG-4 codec
Video Bitrate ......: 1267 KB/s
Resolution .........: 640 x 272
Aspect Ratio .......: 2.35:1
Total Frames .......: 14429 Frames
Framerate ..........: 23.976 FPS

Audio Size (MB) ....: 32.15 MB
Audio Length .......: 00:10:02
Audio Codec Name ...: FAST Multimedia AG DVM (Dolby AC3)
Audio Bitrate ......: 448 KB/s (CBR)
Channels ...........: 6 Ch
Sampling Rate ......: 48000 Hz

-PC Specs-

CPU: Intel P4 3.40GHz
RAM: 2.00 GB RAM
O/S: Windows XP SP2

Note: You will need to take into account your own PC specs to figure out how long it may take your PC to convert files, i.e. if your CPU is slower it will take longer to covert your avi files.

2. Programs Tested

ConvertXtoDVD (Version 2.2.3.258f)

Homepage: http://www.vso-software.fr/products/convert_x_to_dvd/
Guide: http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/158/59/
-

Nero Vision (Version 5.0.100.3)

Homepage: http://www.nero.com/enu/nero8-introduction.html
Guide: http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/125/59/
-


The Film Machine (Version 1.6.0.7) [using CCE SP 2.70]

Homepage: http://members.home.nl/thefilmmachine/
Guide: http://members.home.nl/thefilmmachine/

WinAVI Video Converter (Version 8.0)

Homepage: http://www.winavi.com/en/video-converter/video-converter.htm
Guide: http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/58/59/
-

3. Results

======================

ConvertXtoDVD

Video quality: Good, fast motion is smooth, some degradation in the image. Final DVD 544MB

Audio quality: Very good, no noticable difference to original file

Ease of Use: Very easy to use, set your preferences once and on subsequent uses you can load the video and simply click "Convert".

Aspect Ratio: Keeps original aspect ratio, adds black bars to fill the screen

Time to Convert (mins): 6 minutes 29 seconds using "High quality/Slow encoding" setting. 80% CPU usage throughout

======================

Nero Vision

Video quality: Good, very slight stuttering on fast motion sequences. Final DVD 517MB

Audio quality: Very good, no noticable difference to original file

Ease of Use: Easy to use, allows you to save some preferences. There are many settings which can be adjusted so you would need to check them each time

Aspect Ratio: Keeps original aspect ratio, adds black bars to fill the screen

Time to Convert (mins): 8 minutes 57 seconds using High Quality video setting, default Fast Encoding 1-pass, default Aspect Ratio, and default Automatic Audio format. 100% CPU usage throughout

======================

The Film Machine

Video quality: Excellent. Final DVD 445MB

Audio quality: Very good, no noticable difference to original file

Ease of Use: Correct setup is important expecially for the external encoder (in this case, CCE).

Aspect Ratio: Keeps original aspect ratio, adds black bars to fill the screen

Time to Convert (mins): 17 minutes 34 seconds using CCE 1-pass (note that best video quality with CCE requires 4-pass encoding which increases converting time), default BeSweet, Arrange method "Add borders, keep aspect ratio" (note: all other arrange methods resulted in an incorrect aspect ratio).

The Film Machine is REALLY let down by the amount of time it takes to convert. From these results (and at 4-pass encoding as recommended by CCE) you can assume a 2 hour video can take upwards of 5 hours to convert. 100% CPU usage on most parts.

======================

WinAVI Video Converter

Video quality: Colours are washed out, picture is grainy. Final DVD 354MB

Audio quality: Audio is fine, but flat

Ease of Use: When using default settings, the aspect ratio is incorrect. The only option to change this is to adjust on a percentage which will always give incorrect results.

Aspect Ratio: FAIL

Time to Convert (mins): 3 minutes 19 seconds using default settings - but who cares when the aspect ratio and video quality are so so bad!

======================

4. Conclusion

Other than WinAVI which really has to be the worst converter ever, the others were pretty much the same in video and audio quality. So it comes down to what features you want and what converting time you are prepared to put up with.

On score alone, ConvertXtoDVD is the clear winner, but if you are prepared to wait overnighht for every conversion you make then The Film Machine using CCE with 4-pass encoding would give the best result. Nero Vision is for you if you want to make quality menus and it also supports motion menus.

possible programs to further test:

Total Video Converter
TMPGEnc Xpress 4
Main Concept
DIKO

Comments:

- WinAVI does the job - but when compared to other programs on the same file, the quality is REALLY REALLY TERRIBLE...worse than a VHS rip

- personally I would recommend WinAVI when everything else fails, I always find it converted difficult files well whereas others would go out of sync.

Note: that's the guy's opinion, NOT mine!

Maybe he get some biased too. Or get wrong in many points also. Do you have some other experiences about that programs (or others) , MPEG encoders, settings about AVI to DVD convertions, etc?

Thanks.

[guns1inger]

That reads like someone who wants to sound unbiased but really wants to recommend rubbish. How he could recommend WinAVI at all is beyond me. It is a toy, and not a very good one at that.

If you have downloaded avi files and you want simple with high quality, FAVC. If you want faster, and a little less quality, DVD Flick.

If you have precious video footage then you have a lot to learn because it takes many tools and many steps to get the results that make you sit back and say it was all worth it.

[lordsmurf]

That guide reads like a review on which animal produces the best tasting feces.

It's not so much "which one is best" as it is "which one sucks less".

[tmh]

That reads like someone who wants to sound unbiased but really wants to recommend rubbish. How he could recommend WinAVI at all is beyond me. It is a toy, and not a very good one at that.

I read the review and it says WinAvi is buy far the worst! So I'm not sure how you can say the author recommends it. "Terrible" is what he/she said.

To others out there, remember some here will RIP any discussion even of "all-in-one" products like these, so read their comments with this in mond. Of course, when some of these all-in-one converters have comercial encoders embedded in them, i can't quite see how these encoders can be "crap" in the all-in-one but fine as stand alone!?!?!?

However, folks like gunslinger and LSmurf do know a ton about this stuff, so don't discount what they say just because it is a bit biased against all-in-ones.

btw, what encoder does WinAvi use?

[devilcoelhodog]

it takes many tools and many steps to get the results that make you sit back and say it was all worth it.

Which programs and steps are recommended to reach these kind of quality in "avi to dvd" encoding?

Thanks.

[guns1inger]

That reads like someone who wants to sound unbiased but really wants to recommend rubbish. How he could recommend WinAVI at all is beyond me. It is a toy, and not a very good one at that.

I read the review and it says WinAvi is buy far the worst! So I'm not sure how you can say the author recommends it. "Terrible" is what he/she said.

To others out there, remember some here will RIP any discussion even of "all-in-one" products like these, so read their comments with this in mond. Of course, when some of these all-in-one converters have comercial encoders embedded in them, i can't quite see how these encoders can be "crap" in the all-in-one but fine as stand alone!?!?!?

However, folks like gunslinger and LSmurf do know a ton about this stuff, so don't discount what they say just because it is a bit biased against all-in-ones.

btw, what encoder does WinAvi use?

Read the quoted review down to the last line. Yes, the author says it is terrible. He also says he personally recommends it.

I am not biased against all-in-ones. I am biased against low quality software that makes claims far exceeding it's capabilities and then provides no support to legitimate users when it screws up. WinAVI fits all those criteria.

On my system I use FAVC, DVD Flick and even ConvertxtoDVD as the need arises. For standard downloaded avi files these are more than adequate, however none of these handle every case, hence I have all three.

When it comes to encoding and authoring from your DV avi files containing family holidays and other highlights, I believe they deserve and require more careful handling. However as every video is unique, there is no set process that is used every time. The tools I use include

avisynth and plugins
virtualdub and plugins
HCEnc
Vegas 7
Photoshop CS 2
DVD Lab Pro
Sound Forge 9

as well as other assorted tools and programs. Each are used as required, and not every tool is needed for each project.

Bottom line : I believe in horses for courses. If you want a one-size-fits-all you have to accept compromise. Sometimes that is appropriate. When it is not, you have to have a wider range of tools available to you, and the knowledge to use them.

You can sculpt a log with a chainsaw, and get something that will look OK in your yard. But you will never sculpt something fine and delicate for living-room mantle with it.

[hank315]

Which programs and steps are recommended to reach these kind of quality in "avi to dvd" encoding?

- extract the audio with Virtualdub and re-encode it if necessary
- use Avisynth as frame server
- use one of the encoders mentioned in this thread, and yes, they all have pro's and con's...
- mux video and audio with Muxman

Seems simple, but for the best results you have to experiment with different settings for the encoders and with Avisynth filters.
Just as gunslinger already said, it takes a lot of time, reading, trying etc. to get the best result.

All can be done with freeware stuff except for the commercial encoders.

btw, what encoder does WinAvi use?

By the looks of it WinAvi seems to be based on libavcodec, but it's not a very good implementation, other LAVC apps like Mencoder and QuEnc are a lot better.

[dessieclive]

devilcoelhodog
with ffdshow installed Amadis Video Converter Suite will amaze you with what it can do

[45tripp]

- use one of the encoders mentioned in this thread, and yes, they all have pro's and con's...

HCenc has cons??


tripp

[tmh]

gunslinger, I see your point - and have for over a year here reading your posts. You've helped me out a few times and I was only making the point that some of the more experienced folks here are big believers in separate steps (sometimes, as you said).

One important point to the original question, isn't Procoder a very expensive product? And HCenc is free? I'd say that may make a big difference in the choice. He already had picked his all-in-one (film machine if I recall) and just wondered about the supported encoders he could select from.

[guns1inger]

Like it or not, price is a factor. And sometimes it also causes compromises. HCEnc is in fact free, and we are lucky to have such a strong tool developed and released at that price. However many of the people here work professionally or semi-professionally in video, and can either afford commercial products, or have tax incentives to purchase commercial products.

ProCoder is far more than just an mpeg-2 encoder. It can output in many different formats, batches encodes and has watch folders for automated encoding, and can be a strong part of larger work-flows that the casual user may not need. Is it expensive in that context ? Not so much. Consider CCE SP at US$2000.

Again, horses for courses.

[Kayembee]

guns1inger wrote:
>> tmh wrote:
>>> guns1inger wrote:
>>> That reads like someone who wants
>>> to sound unbiased but really wants to recommend rubbish. How he
>>> could recommend WinAVI at all is beyond me. It is a toy, and not
>>> a very good one at that.
>>
>> I read the review and it says WinAvi is buy far the worst! So
>> I'm not sure how you can say the author recommends it.
>> "Terrible" is what he/she said.
>
> Read the quoted review down to the last line. Yes, the author
> says it is terrible. He also says he personally recommends it.

No, what he said was this:
- personally I would recommend WinAVI when everything else fails, I always find it converted difficult files well whereas others would go out of sync.

In other words, use WinAVI when nothing else works, because he's
seen it work when all else fails.

Sounds sensible to me. When downloading clips from the net you
never know what kind of cruft you might get. If WinAVI can do a
half-assed job with bad input where other software fails more
completely, well, any port in a storm.

Bottom line, it didn't read like a recommendation of WinAVI to
me, either.