new CCE TMPGEnc comparison chart?

[LSchafroth]

Could someone do a in depth comparison between TMPGEnc and CCE basic? Something like the following chart did:

https://www.videohelp.com/comparison.htm#mpeg2

We could decide which program would be best. I like TMPGEnc but time is very limited for me and it is SLOW!

Just curious if anyone was working on such a comparison...

Thanks

Lannie

[legionpc]

Heres a very basic time comparison graph I did:



Test video was a one minute long 576x256 XViD AVI. It was being converted into an NTSCFilm SVCD (480x480) in constant bitrate mode. No audio. All settings were left on default for both programs, other than disabling audio.

Very large difference between encode times there. CCE only took 14 seconds to do the clip... at one point it was actually going at 4.21x realtime

[txpharoah]

This "test" proves nothing honestly, for TMPGEnc, as the name suggests, was made for MPEG1/MPEG2 encoding, not AVI. If other encoders do better for AVI, great, use them. But not on MPEG.

All my tests show TMPGEnc Plus to be up to 3x faster than any version of CCE on all MPEG encodes. Anything from as small a minimum bitrate VCD to a maximum bitrate DVD will look better and can go quicker. I've provided some of my results on some of my other posts.

What's the catch: You have to have the program set up properly, have your system ready for high use, and use good video settings. I see too many people trying to multitask, or have TMPGEnc set on low priority, or using bad settings. See my other posts for some of these suggestions.

[legionpc]

If you read my post properly you'd see I was encoding MPEG I converted an AVI file into MPEG.

You are nuts if you honestly believe TMPGEnc is a faster encoder than CCE

[adam]

txpharoah, no offense but you are obviously doing something wrong. On average CCE should be about twice as fast as TMPGenc regardless of source or output format. This goes for all systems except for multiprocessor pc's and even then CCE is still faster. The encoders are written in completely different types of code. Using its current language, TMPGenc can never even be close to as fast as CCE. Even the author of TMPGenc has conceded this.

Now quality is subjective, some may prefer TMPGenc and others may prefer CCE, but it is a fact that CCE is much faster than TMPGenc.

[LSchafroth]

I know CCE is faster but I was looking for a comparison chart showing the quality with different settings and formats to compare the two.

Thanks!!

Lannie

[txpharoah]

Yes, on like quality MPEG streams, the encoding speed is comparable on both CCE and TMPGenc.

But I find that most systems prefer TMPGenc over CCE in terms of encode speed on highest quality.

I find noise on CCE encodes annoying, and the user interface is an agrravation with fewer filtering options. Filtering is important, as I do restoration work. I don't just copy movies from DVD onto VCD as many here do.

I get 2x realtime on all my encodes. Some of this speed may also depend on my primary system. I have a very nice hardware setup.

[adam]

Once again txpharoah, no one can contest your opinion regarding the quality or interphase of these encoders because that is entirely subjective. It should be noted, however, that CCE is meant to be an encoder and really nothing else. The filtering is supposed to be done before the encoding takes place, which is how all professional encodes are done. This is what frameserving is for and I can assure you that the filtering capabilities available in avisynth are far more numerous than in TMPGenc. For that matter, you could even use TMPGenc's filters in CCE.

If YOU get comparable speed results with these two encoders than YOU are doing something incorrectly because these two encoders simply are not comparable in speed at all. Again, the AUTHOR of TMPGenc has specifically said this himself and for the average user CCE is roughly twice as fast as TMPGenc. You are free to use whatever methods you want, but if you state that TMPGenc is as fast as CCE at comparable settings then I am sorry but you could not be more inaccurate.

If you are still interested in using CCE than I'd suggest giving it another shot. If you tell me exactly what you are doing than perhaps I can determine why you are getting such slow speeds with CCE, because if you can get 2x in TMPGenc than you should get close to 4x in CCE.

Also, are you using the default multipass settings in CCE? If so then you are encoding in 4 pass vbr. From another post I see that you prefer 1 pass VBR in TMPGenc. This means that the CCE encode is doing 3 times more processing than TMPGenc. No wonder TMPGenc seems faster for you.

[Robert@MZ3.Net]

Just pick one and REALLY learn it. I choose TMPEG and took the time to not only read the manual but actually try the different settings and understand what they do. Now that I "know" TMPEG there is no question which is better FOR ME.

I have a friend that tried to talk me into switching to CCE the his only argument was speed. But when I asked him how to handle things like DV AVI (field order B) in CCE he was stumped. There may be a way but the point to my story is knowing one of these applications is going to have a MUCH bigger impact on your output than which app you are actually using.

Okay that said... here's why I like TMPG even if its slower than CCE. In TMPEG I can set up a task, add it to my batch cue and then I'm done. TMPEG is programed so well it can sit in the background and do its thing without impacting MY computer use at all. I even run games like Unreal Tournament 2003 while rendering video. Sure it's not making much progress during that time but as soon as stop gaming it continues about its business. The bottom line is I don't care how long it actually took because it can always be working.

This may not be the case for everyone but its hard to make the CCE speed argument if your computer is off or idle the majority of the day anyway.

[adam]

I believe only older versions of CCE had the field order bug, with later versions just set output to top field first. For later versions you can reverse your field order during frameserving, if its dv, or you can use something like pulldown.exe to reverse it before encoding if its an mpeg2 file. From there just encode as normal.

You can batch encode just as easily in CCE as you can in TMPGenc, personally I think its actually much faster and easier to work with, especially if all clips will use the same settings. Just load your template, than load all your sources at once and hit start.

Correct, if you use your CPU alot while encoding then CCE is too much of a power hog. Of course you can always lower its priority in your task manager. I don't really a difference here between it and TMPGenc.

TMPGenc is such a great encoder, its definitely the best value in the market. CCE is definitely a very strong competitor though. Personally I use both.

[Gazorgan]

I'd like to point out that a lot of people do 2-pass VBR in TMPG, then go and do 4 PASS VBR (5 passes) in CCE, resulting in the same time frame. I think TMPG is easier to use and is a better standalone app. However, for raw speed, CCE is faster. Since I encode overnight, I couldn't justify the cost of CCE. Now that's it's 'cheap' (Jury is still out over how functional the new lite version is), I may switch.