Bitrates: When will come the support for CCE?
I encode now some movies with CCE 2.67.00.11 and I got in CQ 37 in the resolution 704x576 with min.Bit: 300 max.Bit. 5000 with AC3 224 5.1 Dolby with Movies with about 90 Min in Ratio 2.35:1 always ca. 1000 MB inkl. AC3 ...
So I do 4 Movies on a DVD ... I think CCE is now working! BTW: CCE ist much faster than TMPGEnc and the Quality is even better. For a 90 Min Movie in 2.35:1 with my P4 2.4 Ghz it takes only 2 Hours per movie to encode it !!!! |
And it is also paying. A not a little...
After all these post on Divx (used only for personnal hollidays movies, for sure ;-)), now you want more support on a product that cost a lot. I'm not sure all this turn into a good way... Only my 2 cents. |
Re: When will come the support for CCE
Quote:
On MPEG-1, TMPEG just blows CCE away, an that's a fact. But now that I think about it, CCE is a very expensive product, so maybe I should make CQMatic for CCE another product, and also a pay product :idea: ;) -kwag |
Re: When will come the support for CCE
Quote:
About the price of CCE, they now have CCE basic which costs only $58. The problem with CCE Basic is: it doesn't accept custom matrixes (CCE Patcher also can't be used for that) and it don't have 1-pass VBR (just 2-pass). So if there might be any CQMatic for CCE, it will have to be CCE SP... :( But please keep CQMatic for CCE free, Kwag! :D []'s Vmesquita |
Re: When will come the support for CCE
Quote:
Maybe CQMatic for CCE SP ~$49.99 is a fair deal :idea: But only if it's solid as a rock, and works flawlessly ;) I mean, if someone buys CCE SP, then $49.95 is peanuts. Specially to produce great quality, automatically in a single pass. I know I wouldn't but CQMatic for CCE, because I don't have $1,750.00 to spend, specially if I can get almost the same results (MPEG-2) with TMPEG. Personally, I think CCE is WAY over priced, and TMPEG is under priced. But I believe that if I ( or anyone! ) is going to add value to a $1,750.00 product, hell, I'm going to make something out of it too :!: Why should CCE benefit from a "value add-on" product, and not the third party :?: -kwag |
I don't think the speed difference is that much if you are doing Motion Estimate Search which I thought we were all using now for the MA script?
|
Quote:
I think it's about the same, so CCE's advantage over TMPGEnc is now near zero ;) -kwag |
Quote:
I even took still frames and looked at them 200% and still saw no difference....i'm stickin with TMPGEnc as long as I'm using this great script kwag has developed |
Hi everyone,
Just to add stupdity to all this.. FWIW, I've ben using High quality (slow) in my encodes :!: So, perhaps I can obtain some add'l speed increases after all hehe ?? And, do I have to run ALL my tests again ?? ?? ?? -vhelp |
@vhelp,
Change your setting in TMPEG to Motion Estimate. You'll get faster encodes and better quality :) -kwag |
Tanx Kwagowsky..
:hammer: doing it now.. won't know difference or quality results, till I try it out sooner or later.. ..write now, I'm buisy formulating w/ VCALC, I think I'm close to nailing what/how fitCD / MStaker 's formulas for Ave bitrate and things.. so, stay tuned.. :screwy: ..Course, others can chip in if they know :!: Can't wait to give ME a try (not win ME, dah) :hihi: Be well, all.. -vhelp |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.