CCE vs Procoder: MPEG2 encoding at high bitrates

[pluto32]

I have a number of audience shot (PAL interlaced miniDV and Digital8) concert videos that I want to convert to DVD. Quality is my only concern so I intend to use the maximum possible bitrate for the video. I will be encoding the audio to the AC3 format at 448 kbit/sec.

My question is: at very high bitrates (ie. video at 9000 kbit/sec - 9200 kbit/sec) which encoder produces higher quality encodes? I understand that there may be some playback issues at bitrates that rate (although I've yet to come across a DVD player that has experienced problems) but I'm willing to live with that.

My footage is mostly hand held but some videos are tripod steady. I have tried both encoders and it's a close call. I'm finding it difficult to spot any differences, but I do know as I become more familiar with encoders and the artifacts they produce I will be able to spot them more easily in the future so that's why I'm hoping I could benefit from the Doom9 regulars.
Thanks.

[Pookie]

At high bit rates, it's very hard to tell the difference between encoders. Even though I have Procoder at work, I use the free Quenc or HC for most things at home. I have to encode at high bitrates for short presentations to coworkers and clients. I've never had anyone say "Could you use a better encoder ?".

That said, you can do some terrific pre-processing to your material with AviSynth to prepare it for encoding. You can reduce the camera shake, remove the noise, brighten up the dark parts- whatever you want. THAT will be the place which will turn your material from good to great looking.

BTW, I like Procoder for HD 720p encodes I have to do every once in a while.

[MarcN]

Procoder allows you to do field-based encoding. So it may do a better job with interlaced material. However not all DVD players like that kind of video.

[tigerman8u]

of the 2 overall I liked cce a little better. not saying the quality was alot better it was just my preference. let your eyes be the judge

[pluto32]

Thanks for your suggestions. I've been looking at Avisynth and various filters to improve the quality of my DV footage but it's a hit and miss affair. I've run a few more tests between CCE and Procoder and still can't tell the difference with the sort of footage I have so I guess I'm in the fortunate position of being able to use either.

[SAPSTAR]

With so high bitrates, I would say that any encoder would be OK, so for its speed I would choose CCE SP.....And for the matrix I would choose a flat 8/16 to keep every possible details.

[azsd]

Hi,Pookie

could you suggest how to do "reduce the camera shake" in avisynth?
I have try dup/cnr2 but it take no effect.
I've no idear on it.

thx

[Malow]

at medium-high bitrates procoder do a better job with interlaced at my tests, but, at maximum bitrate, i can't say.... but CCE is mutch faster... so...

[wmansir]

At very high bitrates I would give CCE the nod for 3 reasons.

1. ProCoder has a built-in low pass filter that can not be disabled. It results in a very slight smoothing/blur that is difficult to detect when playing, but noticeable when comparing screen shots. It is possible that this filter is adjusted according to bitrate or quality demand (Scene complexity/bitrate) and so it may not kick in at higher bitrates, I haven't tested that myself.

2. CCE is much faster and cheaper (Basic version). Even without the low pass filter, with a high enough bitrate the output should look identical to the input with both encoders. At that point it comes down to speed and price. Both companies have cut down versions of there encoder for around $60, CCE Basic should fit your needs, but I'm not sure if ProCoder Express would. I suspect it would, but I haven't used it enough to know.

PS. I'm actually a big proponent of ProCoder at lowish bitrates (say under 3500), but prefer CCE at the highend.