Log in

View Full Version : CCEAQM option in RB


Pages : 1 [2]

jdobbs
23rd December 2006, 13:16
That would certainly make you think that it is being applied more often than just when minimum bitrate can't be met, wouldn't it? Maybe I should do some testing. If it gets used more often, it may provide a possible solution to sources that undersize due to encoder saturation.

jdobbs
23rd December 2006, 13:20
I thought in recent versions of DVD-Rebuilder you did not need to but in the AutoQMatAQM=1 into the .ini? Doesn't Settings > AutoQmatEnc Settings > Enable QMATOpt (AQM) do the same thing?Yes. When you select/deselect that setting from the menu, you are actually changing the value of "AutoQMatAQM" in the INI.

manono
23rd December 2006, 13:44
That would certainly make you think that it is being applied more often than just when minimum bitrate can't be met, wouldn't it?

Yes, its use is much more complex than Fishman0919's quotation from the CCE guide implies. Using a higher bitrate matrix for very low bitrate scenes in order to keep to the minimum bitrate you've set is only one of its uses, and probably the least important.

varekai
25th December 2006, 10:53
Using DVD-RB Pro 1.20.04, "Encoder Default" settings, and CCE SP 2.70 trial, "Standard" settings.
I backup my DVD9 movies to DVD5 using mostly "Backup Mode"/"Movie Only".
I'm trying to understand if the setting in rebuilder.ini [Options] CCEAQM=1 is any good for me but to be honest I don't... :o
Will I generally get a better picture quality with my above mentioned settings and with CCEAQM enabled?

varekai

linx05
25th December 2006, 11:58
Now I am a bit confused. Is AutoQMatAQM=1 the same as CCEAQM=1 ? Or are they two totally different switches. I am using AutoQmatenc not CCE.

I blame the alcohol served at xmas lunch :P

jdobbs
25th December 2006, 16:32
Two different switches. If you have "Enable QMATOpt (AQM)" selected under "SETTINGS/AUTOQMATENC SETTINGS" then the AutoQMatAQM=1 setting is set. "CCEAQM=1" has not effect on AutoQMatEnc, it is a CCE setting.

linx05
26th December 2006, 02:03
Ah thanks. That clears it up now.