Experiences with HC Encoder [Archive] - Page 2

TCrowe

19th April 2005, 02:58

Originally posted by dragongodz
johnhamler1 - you should try the new HC 0.13. its both faster and has better sizing. so restore the TargetSectors back to default and see how you go.

I just upgraded to .85 RB Pro but it only has HCBatch_012.exe. Do you simply delete that and copy over the new HCBatch_013?

Thanks...

lamster

19th April 2005, 03:10

Originally posted by TCrowe
I just upgraded to .85 RB Pro but it only has HCBatch_012.exe. Do you simply delete that and copy over the new HCBatch_013?
No need to delete it - from Rebuilder, select Options / Setup, and change "Path to HC Encoder" to point to the version you want to use.

TCrowe

19th April 2005, 03:29

Originally posted by lamster
No need to delete it - from Rebuilder, select Options / Setup, and change "Path to HC Encoder" to point to the version you want to use.

Thanks lamster...

Matt Edd

19th April 2005, 03:30

I just used HC for the first time two days ago (after the new version) and it does as good of a job as QuEnc but is a bit faster... for me at least. Also I read somewhere that it is less buggy but I have yet to run into a bug in either encoder.

lamster

19th April 2005, 05:33

I had asked if the HC count-down when it finishes encoding is necessary, and dragongodz replied here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=642080#post642080) that "hank315 already added the *wait command in 0.12 so exiting could be faster if used."

How can I use this from Rebuilder? Shouldn't it be done by default?

jdobbs

19th April 2005, 10:57

It is done by default. DVD-RB Professional sets WAIT to zero. As WAIT is not a command line parameter in QuEnc, it isn't set in the freeware version. You could add it to the default INI file, though. If you use the batch version of HC with DVD-RB Pro you will get no countdown. If you are getting the countdown -- it is my guess that you aren't pointing to the encoder you think you are.

winny

19th April 2005, 17:42

I've tried using hcbatch instead of cce for the first time and I'm very impressed with the output. Thank you hank :D

During the encoding I experienced a Windows Dr Watson error, but after clearing this and restarting from the last successful segment it completed without further problems.

I tried a second project on a different PC and had another Dr Watson error during encoding.

Has anyone else had this? I've done a forum search but it's difficult to find the correct criteria when "hc" is too small a string.

Thanks in advance.

DMagic1

19th April 2005, 19:12

What is the default matrix with HC? Is it suppose to be MPEG? I thought is was HC. I did a project yesterday and it was set to MPEG.
Sorry if this was covered before.

onesoul

19th April 2005, 19:53

@ DMagic1

Since version HC 0.11 mpeg matrix is the default one. Check the changelog that comes with HC.

lamster

19th April 2005, 21:17

Originally posted by winny
I've tried using hcbatch instead of cce for the first time and I'm very impressed with the output. Thank you hank :D

During the encoding I experienced a Windows Dr Watson error, but after clearing this and restarting from the last successful segment it completed without further problems.

I tried a second project on a different PC and had another Dr Watson error during encoding.

Has anyone else had this?
Yes, I described it in a "Other MPEG1/2 encoder (http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=62)" thread here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=641942#post641942), and Hank replied in the new HC 0.13 encoder (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93211) thread here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=642012#post642012).

lamster

20th April 2005, 00:31

Originally posted by jdobbs
It is done by default. DVD-RB Professional sets WAIT to zero.
You're absolutely correct. Once I figured out where to find the HC.INI file (in the D2VAVS directory), I saw that it had a "*WAIT 0" line.
If you are getting the countdown -- it is my guess that you aren't pointing to the encoder you think you are.
Well, I was checking to see if a crash I experienced in HCBatch_013.exe also occurred in HCBatch_012.exe, so I was using a back-level version. Perhaps support for it was added in 0.12a rather than 0.12? I guess the point is moot, since I didn't see the count-down with 0.13, but I'm not confused about what version I was running - the screen shot here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=641942#post641942) clearly shows "HCbatch 0.12" in the title bar, and the countdown in the "input statistics" field.

Numer0bis

20th April 2005, 02:22

Amazing.

I usually use DVD-RB with CCE 2.70 but tried HC013 on my Bridget Jones 2 disc and I must say the result is just amazing. I can't see any blockness and what me made wonder is why it just needed 193 minutes for the whole process. I've read that it would take normally 8 hours or so for a conversion. I don't know if this has something todo with my athlon64. I know it's a fast machine but that fast?? Well I must cleary say thank you to hank and I'll appreciate his work into making a very good mpeg -2 encoder, even if it is just version 0.13 is simply amazing for that stadium of development.

Greetz Numer0bis

alfixdvd

20th April 2005, 09:00

HC012 it would take probably 8 hours, but HC013 cuts the time by half.

regards
alfixdvd

Numer0bis

20th April 2005, 10:53

so the new version cuts the time by half and what about the quality? Is there a differnce between the versions or doesn't suffer the quality under the cut of the time?

rendez2k

20th April 2005, 11:04

My initial test showed much quicker time and no visable loss in quality. I'm guessing the code has just been optimized?! I'd also like to say how cool the new 'one-pass' option is! Took just over 100mins to due a complete DVD and the quality again is amazing! Fantastic work.

ernstblaauw

20th April 2005, 11:19

Originally posted by rendez2k
My initial test showed much quicker time and no visable loss in quality. I'm guessing the code has just been optimized?! I'd also like to say how cool the new 'one-pass' option is! Took just over 100mins to due a complete DVD and the quality again is amazing! Fantastic work.
But the bitrate is not DVD compliant. So not suitable for DVD backups.

jdobbs

20th April 2005, 11:26

Just to clarify, the bitrates output in 2 pass mode are DVD compliant. Unfortunately right now the one pass VBR is having a bit of a problem in that area. Hank315 is working that.

JohnG

20th April 2005, 17:39

But the bitrate is not DVD compliant. So not suitable for DVD backups.

Is this unequivocal for every encode? How would it be non-compliant? Are you referring to bitrate spikes above the compliancy level? If so, there are ways to check the min/avg/max levels on the backup before burning.
ernst... can you please clarify.

jdobbs

20th April 2005, 17:50

High demand scenes can spike above the DVD maximum of 9.8Mbs. Some (like the HBO whitenoise screen) can go much higher...

rendez2k

20th April 2005, 17:52

So HC as issues in OPV mode? Although I haven't tested my first DVD all the way through, would I need to, to see the problems or the DVD just won't play at all? Will the problems be present on all DVDs?

winny

20th April 2005, 17:58

lamster, thanks for covering the Dr Watson problem so extensively in the hc_13 thread.

For anyone else getting them, don't let it put you off using it. The end results are still superb.

dragongodz

21st April 2005, 00:44

johnhamler1 - you still reading this ? did you try the tests again as i suggested earlier ?

jdobbs

21st April 2005, 00:55

Originally posted by rendez2k
So HC as issues in OPV mode? Although I haven't tested my first DVD all the way through, would I need to, to see the problems or the DVD just won't play at all? Will the problems be present on all DVDs? From what I've seen it is only a problem on very high demand areas, like the infamous HBO whitescreen. I'd be careful using OPV with the current version -- think of it as experimental.

Just as a heads up, Hank315 has modified HC and put bitrate limitations on OPV so that it can maintain DVD compliancy... I'm testing it now -- way cool. This encoder is getting better all the time.

Vanderlow

21st April 2005, 02:22

Ok I just installed the freeware version Rebuilder .83 and it also installed the .13 HC encoder and I see a line in the Rebuilder.ini that references the HC Encoder, but I do not see the HC encoder in the actual menu of Rebuilder, so do I go back in the Rebuilder.ini and change the QuEnc line to point to the HC encoder? What's that HC line already in the Rebuilder.ini file doing (HC=C:\Program Files\DVD-RB\HC Encoder\HCBATCH_012a.EXE)? Thanks

jdobbs

21st April 2005, 02:54

The Pro Versions have an HC Path.

jsquare

21st April 2005, 15:20

I purchased the Magnum P.I. season 1 TV series(NTSC 4:3) 4-Disc set and wanted to back it up to DVD-R, I decided to give a try to DVD-RB since disc 1 side A holds 4 episodes(200Mins) and didn't like the results with Shrink or D2O.

First tried DVD-RB with CCE 2.67, speed was fast enough around 2.25 but end results was basically the same as some other CCE encodes, the "mosquito or halo" effect in most places remind me of the ultra-low bitrate encodes trials with D2S. So I decided to try this new HC encoder with DVD-RB.

The full disc encode took 290mins(not counting the preparation and final steps of DVD-RB), that's an speed of about 0.69 on my Dell 400SC(Win2K3) with P4HT 2.8Ghz and 1.5GB Dual Channel PC3200 RAM. End results were better than expected, but still have to watch it on my 55" TV, so far only my 19" CRT and 17" LCD at work were used for preview.

All I can say is that Hank is doing a great job with this project and jdobbs by supporting on DVD-RB.

DMagic1

21st April 2005, 17:55

Well I get blocks using HC that don't seems as visiable with CCE. Heres a shot from Pirates of the Caribbean. Thats seems to be the only problem I have with HC and even QUENC, the blocks in flat and dark scenes.
http://img139.echo.cx/img139/4541/untitledhc5eg.jpg

johnhamler1

21st April 2005, 18:06

ok, i have updated the hc encoder with the new version.
I have set the target size to a value I dont remeber when typing this.
I did a DVD, "identity", US ntsc version. and it gives me 4.30G, which is perfect!

will do more tests...

(time to encode is now around 5 hours, instead of 8, goood job!!!)

DMagic1

21st April 2005, 19:31

Oh, btw
It was only about 75% compression and the bitrate was pretty good. I can't remember exactly but maybe about ~3500.

onesoul

21st April 2005, 20:26

I also had better results with cce at bitrates 3000 - 3500kbps on progressive anime source. Maybe the tweaks such as bias and Quantization characteristics could be some of the reasons for this happening.

In the test I did before with interlaced source, hc was better (at 4400kbps).

DMagic1 Could you try doing the same encode at 4000-4500?
I am also interested in the OPV result from HC, haven't tried it myself. I suspect it will be a more close match at 1 pass vbr between HC and CCE (at least hope so).

Cheers

jdobbs

21st April 2005, 23:16

Wait for the next version to test OPV and HC. Version 013 can create non-compliant bitrates on high-demand scenes. Hank315 has made some changes and I just finished testing it -- it works exceptionally well... it will be supported in HC v014 and DVD-RB v0.86. Both will be out soon.

onesoul

22nd April 2005, 01:39

Originally posted by jdobbs
From what I've seen it is only a problem on very high demand areas, like the infamous HBO whitescreen. I'd be careful using OPV with the current version -- think of it as experimental. Is the HBO white noise the same I used in my test (also interlaced)? :)

johnhamler1

22nd April 2005, 12:43

did a second test , skycaptain & bla bla with a.jolly and her big lips, PAL.

right on the spot, 4.35 GIG like the other test I did.target size is working...

Rockas

24th April 2005, 15:58

Ok... I admit... just made my first experience with HC using "One Pass CQ VBR" and I'm completly "Horrorized" with the final result :D

I never thought that it would be possible to get such a great Quality from a "one pass encode" in one Free Encoder.

I have the same movie done using CCE 2.50 with 2 passes (VAF+1) and I can't see any differences at first sight...
And the final size was PERFECT = 4.583.812KB (but this was just my first test... more to come) :D

Way to go Hank!

24th April 2005, 16:19

the 120 min title i used for the speed comparison between 012 and 013 resultet in a 4.1gb conversion with opv

using NORMAL as quality/speed setting the result is visible inferior to a 4.5gb conversion done with hc 013 and BEST setting

Rockas

24th April 2005, 16:21

Oh! I forgot to mention... I was using HC 0.14.

quantum

24th April 2005, 16:24

Originally posted by onesoul
I also had better results with cce at bitrates 3000 - 3500kbps on progressive anime source. Maybe the tweaks such as bias and Quantization characteristics could be some of the reasons for this happening.

In the test I did before with interlaced source, hc was better (at 4400kbps). I'm also finding different results depending on the source and bitrate. For me, comparing HC to CCE is getting more complicated.

jdobbs

24th April 2005, 17:22

Originally posted by DK
the 120 min title i used for the speed comparison between 012 and 013 resultet in a 4.1gb conversion with opv

using NORMAL as quality/speed setting the result is visible inferior to a 4.5gb conversion done with hc 013 and BEST setting You have to use v014... there were several problems with using OPV and v013...

24th April 2005, 19:49

You have to use v014..

i acutally DID but forget to point out i used 014 in my previous post

jdobbs

24th April 2005, 21:04

Interesting, because every job I've done using HC v014 has been right on the money. If course it is expected for an OPV encode to be a little off -- but that seems like a lot.

By the way... a DVD-5 will only hold 4.37GB.

hank315

24th April 2005, 21:58

Also did some tests with DVD-RB 0.86 and HC 014, OPV mode:

LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring - PAL
final size: 4.23 GB, quantizer used: 5.5

Matrix - Revolutions - PAL
final size: 4.20 GB, quantizer used: 5.1

24th April 2005, 22:13

By the way... a DVD-5 will only hold 4.37GB

sure thing

my results:

=> hc 014 opv: 4.166.104k
=> hc 013: 4.522.843k

archaeo

25th April 2005, 01:34

my results with a 100 minute title:

=> hc_14 OPV: 4.14 Gb .......260 min encoding time
=> cce_2.70 OPV: 4.17 Gb ....74 min encoding time

speed has improved in HC...

jdobbs

25th April 2005, 01:50

You have to divide by 1024 to get GB...

jdobbs

25th April 2005, 02:01

I just got an oversized test too. I'll tweak the prediction algorithm a little.

ernstblaauw

25th April 2005, 09:59

Hi jdobbs,

In the thread 'HC Encoder' in the forum 'Other MPEG1/2 encoder', I posted an error:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=645386#post645386

Hopefully you can address it (or hank315). I do not know the origin of the fault, so I posted the problem in that thread.

jdobbs

25th April 2005, 12:10

I think you've nailed it. The output string to HC's INI file should always have a "." --- not a ",". I used a formatting function that adjusts for different notation standards, and that isn't appropriate for that file. This will probably make playing havoc in non-English speaking countries that use the comma as the decimal notation rather than a period...

I'll fix it and release a new version today.

Rockas

25th April 2005, 12:14

That's funny... In the test I made (see a few replies above) it gave me a final result that was Perfect (Lucky I guess) :D

johnhamler1

27th April 2005, 15:36

i have not tried yet the 0.14 will do this later.

this software works fine now, much better than a month ago. so my question now is: is it possible to make more than 2 pass, 3 or even 4 pass???.
with 2 pass, it takes 4-5 hours on my 1.7pentium M.
most people I guess are working or sleeping when encoding, so 1-2 more pass, will not change my sleep time!

will encode tomb rider PAL version tonight....u dont care? I do :)
(added: encoded tom rider in 4.5 hours best quality 2 pass, 4.31 gig...perfect)

BTW,someone can explain me in 2-3 lines what a matrix is? how it works?

I guess there is a matrix for cartoon like "Incredibles" or "searching Nemo", what do u suggest?

johnhamler1

2nd May 2005, 16:55

???

halpern

2nd May 2005, 17:17

All in all what can we see so far? Does CCE have competition with HC or is it good to say that CCE is still on top? I have yet to do any tests. Thanks.

hank315

2nd May 2005, 17:50

@johnhamler1
is it possible to make more than 2 pass, 3 or even 4 pass???.No, that's not possible.
And I have no plans to implement more passes, HC (just like Quenc) is set up in such a way it only needs 2 passes.

BTW,someone can explain me in 2-3 lines what a matrix is? how it works?For a simple matrix explanation:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=89897

Just read the post by neuron2, best explanation in just a few lines.

This is a short explanation how it works, how it will work out for your video that's a total different story...
It takes a lot of reading and trying to find out what's best for you.

SAPSTAR

2nd May 2005, 18:11

Originally posted by johnhamler1
...BTW,someone can explain me in 2-3 lines what a matrix is? how it works?

I guess there is a matrix for cartoon like "Incredibles" or "searching Nemo", what do u suggest? ...

I suggest you to use QMatOp ;) http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92810
It was tested with HC and they work really well together.....

archaeo

2nd May 2005, 18:30

Any type of consensus here yet on where HC may be better/worse equipped for certain sources than CCE? I've read comments from beta testers that indicate it is getting difficult to tell (the good news!), but others mention where it might not do as well as CCE, or does better. I've completed several encodes on my own that have looked very good, pretty much indistinguishable from CCE. I sure can't tell very easily, but I haven't yet 'pushed' HC yet as others may have.

Just wondering if others have come to any general impressions/ conclusions with regard to HC performance with varying sources. It looks a great tool to have in the shed, just wondering in what situations you'd lean toward bringing it out, or sticking with CCE.

SAPSTAR

2nd May 2005, 18:38

Originally posted by archaeo
Any type of consensus here yet on where HC may be better/worse equipped for certain sources than CCE? I've read comments from beta testers that indicate it is getting difficult to tell (the good news!), but others mention where it might not do as well as CCE, or does better. I've completed several encodes on my own that have looked very good, pretty much indistinguishable from CCE. I sure can't tell very easily, but I haven't yet 'pushed' HC yet as others may have.

Just wondering if others have come to any general impressions/ conclusions with regard to HC performance with varying sources. It looks a great tool to have in the shed, just wondering in what situations you'd lean toward bringing it out, or sticking with CCE.
Well, what I noticed is that HC seems to be better than CCE for low bitrates or interlaced materials....But I also recently discovered that if you choose a really good Quality prec according to the bitrate in CCE, in fact CCE becomes better than HC.
Conclusion : I would say that if you are not to tweak settings in CCE, HC is the best choice for low bitrates and interlaced materials. Another alternative is the usage of QMatOp with CCE, I added new functions to adjust automatically the Qprec + VbrBias at the cell level in addition to the optimization of the matrices of course.....

Edsel

17th June 2005, 19:09

Hmm, seems most folks here had troubles with undersizing. I'm the opposite, I've tried it twice, and it's been oversized each time. Not by much, PGCEdit reports 16538 sectors or 31.95 MB, but enough to cause trouble.

HC 0.14, RB 0.93.2, running in Best mode, not one pass. Disks are Simpsons Season 3, disk 1 and 2, no angles or interleaving to cause troubles. Have removed the FBI warnings, studio logos with DVD Remake Pro before starting, doesn't normally affect anything.

I do have a CCETargetSectors=2245000, but that shouldn't be affecting HC.

jdobbs

17th June 2005, 21:35

That's probably about right. The default TargetSectors setting is slightly under a full disc. There is also an HCTargetSectors "hidden" setting as well.

feedback

18th June 2005, 16:36

@jdobbs

Can we just drop the New HCbatch_015 in the encoder folder in DVD-RB Pro.

Or, are you about to release an update, say v0.94Pro., with the updated HC encoder included?

Regards,:)

hank315

18th June 2005, 16:40

I just released a new version of HC: HC015

For DVD-RB users, you can just replace the old exe with this new one, should work OK.

feedback

18th June 2005, 16:47

@hank315

Darn, in the middle of an encode with HC_14 in DVD-RB.

Not that I want to lose quality for speed, but is HC_15 any faster?

Quality comes first for me. Otherwise, I would just use a transcoder.

Regards,:)

osho

19th June 2005, 19:31

I wanted to try this encoder, but for some reason everytime I want to encode with DVDRB HC pops up a GUI and then I get XP error that application has crashed.

-------------------------------
AMD 3700+, 2GB RAM, 560GB HDD
XP PRO SP2

Rockas

19th June 2005, 19:34

BadServo

19th June 2005, 21:29

I jsut upgraded to 0.15 last night for an encode. I've always had extremely good results with HC, and only occational undersizing. However, this encode with 0.15, went from a 5.10GB disc to a 4.70GB disc. That's a substantial oversize. Source material is only about 2hours long. Any ideas? Possible incompatibility between 0.15 and DVD-RB?

hank315

19th June 2005, 21:51

@BadServo
Strange you got such an oversize, in fact I did only a few minor changes in the bitrate control for HC015.
There shouldn't be any incompatibilities between 0.15 and DVD-RB.
Will run some tests (again) with RB and HC015, will let you know.

Rippraff

19th June 2005, 22:02

@hank315

I've made a test with RB and 0.15 last night, final size was 4.36GB. :)
I've had difficulties with dropped frames with 0.14 on my overclocked AMD XP-M which I haven't with 0.13. Now everything is working perfect again! http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/froehlich/a020.gif
Thanks for your excellent work! :)

Cu Rippraff

BadServo

19th June 2005, 22:03

alfixdvd

20th June 2005, 08:16

@hank315

I've made a test with RB and 0.15 last night, final size was 4.35GB.

All's right.

BadServo

22nd June 2005, 21:11

Hank315, just a quick suggestion... Would it be possible to implement a process priority setting in the GUI that is retained between sessions? I often run my encodes on my main machine, and having HC running in the background at the Normal priority heavily inhibits my PC's usefulness.

I'm aware that I can use the Task Manager to manually adjsut the priority after launch, but on titles with dozens of very small segments, that's not very useful, since the priority will reset itself to normal on each launch.

Just a humble suggestion.

Fishman0919

22nd June 2005, 21:59

BadServo

22nd June 2005, 22:02

Ah yes, I did see that. Never occured to me to try it on HC though. Thanks.

Fishman0919

22nd June 2005, 22:10

Ah yes, I did see that. Never occured to me to try it on HC though. Thanks.

NP ;)

feedback

23rd June 2005, 06:43

Thanks, I'll continue playing with it myself. What intruiges me is that this particular disc is the third in a set of anime episodic DVDs. Each disc is virtually identical as far as running time, extras, etc. So I found it odd to get such drastically different results compared to the encodes I performed on Vol 1 & 2 using HC 0.14.

Well I am backing up my "Band of Brothers" 6 disc set, I get 4463Mb with HC-15
and 4465Mb with HC-14. I have HCTargetSectors set at 2261000. There are 2 episodes plus extras on each disk. I am encoding the complete disk with the HC encoder in DVD-RB Pro. The first one I used the default matrix, then switched to the BDVD matrix for the second disk, they both look good, but at the time I prefered the BDVD matrix over the default in HC14.

Now with HC15 it looks even better on the same disk with the default matrix.
Hank315 did you change something in the matrix in HC15?

I mean it looks better than the original disk. The original has that sort of grainy faded color look to it for a World War 2 movie. And of course there are plenty of action scenes. (Great Movie Series BTW).

So, I am having no problem with HC15 and actually prefer the copy over the original.

How often does it happen that your reencoded movie looks better than the original? That really speaks well of HC and DVD-RB IMHO.

Regards,:)

P.S. Typical bitrate was 3777. Normal quality setting. Default matrix. GOP auto. DC precision 10

edit: spelling
edit ps

hank315

23rd June 2005, 12:18

@BadServo
HC itself runs at a normal priority but it starts another thread which does the actual encoding.
The priority for that one is set to THREAD_PRIORITY_BELOW_NORMAL.

@feedback
No, I didn't change anything related to matrices.
Because of the better motion estimation (and some other tweaks) the general quality of HC015 will be better than HC014 :)

archaeo

2nd July 2005, 03:30

Just wanted to report some excellent results w/HC v15 beta. Backup was 'hoop dreams': 210 min, full disc w/extras, avg bitrate 1988. I applied undot/deen filters, and ran it through RB v93.2 onto one dvd5... results are excellent, no artifacts, and came in right at 4.33 gb. Just very pleased with how this little encoder handles the low bitrate sources - it's fast becoming my primary tool for these instances. kudos to hank ;)

gizzin

2nd July 2005, 08:30

I did encodes of Trailer Park Boys Season 4. I kept everything averaging a bitrate of 3200kb for disc 1 and 3000 for disc 2. I used both HC 15 (Best Quality) and CCE 2.67 (4Passes). And clearly the winner was HC, Im very impressed in its quality especially even more so it is free. And its sizing is accurate. Keep up the good work hank. Also a heads up to jdobbs for making DVD rebuilder which makes use of a good free encoder.

johnhamler1

4th July 2005, 15:30

dont shout to loud it is free, hank can change his mind anytime!!!

Fiebre

5th July 2005, 14:18

Just wanted to make sure; is everyone getting consistent results from opv with HC? I'd be much quicker to jump on this then. Thanks.

greinedo

6th July 2005, 10:28

Hello,

I encoded with success many PAL DVDs with DVD Rebuilder and QuEnc.
But as soon as I try to use HC Encoder in place of QuEnc, I always experience the same problem : messed picture. It seems here that the wrong resolution is used for decoding or encoding. Is it linked with PAL/NTSC change ?

It is surely something very simple, but any help will be appreciated.

This is what it looks like :

http://img278.echo.cx/img278/540/problem1ky.jpg

Thanks

gigah72

6th July 2005, 21:21

i noticed that it's turned on, but why?
i won't cut the movie afterwards and i believe it will not improve the video, coz it's stealing bits, too.
useing 1.00rc1

hank315

6th July 2005, 23:29

@greinedo
Seems you're using Avisynth 2.5.6 beta3, just install 2.5.6 beta2 and it will run OK.

@gigah72
Scene change detection is turned on by default.
If an encoder hits a scene change it will encode that frame completely intra because there's nothing to predict from previous frames.
I-frames are better for this so it will not steal bits but it will save bits.