digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)
-   -   Bitrates: When will come the support for CCE? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/4935-bitrates-support-cce.html)

Avalon 08-08-2003 06:42 AM

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 !!!!

Dialhot 08-08-2003 07:07 AM

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.

kwag 08-08-2003 12:53 PM

Re: When will come the support for CCE
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon

BTW: CCE ist much faster than TMPGEnc and the Quality is even better.

That's true, but only on MPEG-2 is the quality "a little" better than TMPEG.
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

vmesquita 08-08-2003 03:48 PM

Re: When will come the support for CCE
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
That's true, but only on MPEG-2 is the quality "a little" better than TMPEG.
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

I don't see a lot of difference in quality in MPEG2 CCE comparing to TMPGEnc, for me quality of them is about the same. But CCE is about 3/4 times faster in my system.
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

kwag 08-08-2003 04:14 PM

Re: When will come the support for CCE
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vmesquita
But please keep CQMatic for CCE free, Kwag! :D

Hmmm.. , well, let's see: CCE SP costs $1,750.00 :!:
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

Dano 08-08-2003 11:28 PM

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?

kwag 08-08-2003 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano
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?

That's true :!:
I think it's about the same, so CCE's advantage over TMPGEnc is now near zero ;)

-kwag

audi2honda 08-08-2003 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano
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?

That's true :!:
I think it's about the same, so CCE's advantage over TMPGEnc is now near zero ;)

-kwag

A few months ago I compared motion fast estimate to CCE multipass in DVD2SVCD using the same MA script from this site and I saw zero difference in quality between the two.

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

vhelp 08-09-2003 10:36 AM

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

kwag 08-09-2003 11:28 AM

@vhelp,

Change your setting in TMPEG to Motion Estimate.
You'll get faster encodes and better quality :)

-kwag

vhelp 08-09-2003 11:36 AM

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.