Why break it up?

[bouis]

Bear with me -- this is my first time using this tool. But I noticed that it breaks the movie up and encodes each chunk separately. How come? Wouldn't it do better for bitrate distribution to let CCE have at the whole movie at once?

[Rockas]

Let's just simplify the answer (this has been discussed before) and I'll give you the latest reason...
... You wouldn't be able to to pause the process and resume.

[bouis]

Is there an option in the Pro version to leave it as one file? It's annoying to have CCE pop up over what I'm doing with a high process priority over and over...

[Rockas]

No... what is the CCE version you are using? versions 2.66 and 2.67 can be minimized all the time if you check "Run Encoder(s) minimized" on the setup dialog... 2.50 and 2.50 won't :(
But, of course, you can alway use QuEnc and/or HC... they won't pop-up as long as you have the option above enabled.

[bouis]

The minimizing thing doesn't really bother me. But if you're taking suggestions, I'd suggest that there be an option to set CCE process priority to low and another option to hand the entire movie to CCE.

I did a longer, action movie -- Kingdom of Heaven -- and I was disappointed with the quality. CCE should be better.

[dragongodz]

I noticed that it breaks the movie up and encodes each chunk separately. How come? Wouldn't it do better for bitrate distribution to let CCE have at the whole movie at once?
bouis - wow, you registered in 2002 and still dont know how to :search: i am impressed. :devil:

let me save you some effort just this once.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=90684&highlight=dynamic+bitrate+allocation
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=91240&highlight=dynamic+bitrate+allocation
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=99690&highlight=dynamic+bitrate+allocation

[bouis]

I've got a lot of experience with searching -- I know, for instance, when I don't know the right search terms to actually find what I'm looking for. You'll have to forgive my infamiliarity with the jargon. Maybe inexcusable as long as I've been doing this.

So, I read those threads. I'm not convinced that doing it cell-by-cell, even when based on the original bitrate distribution, is optimal. The people who encode the originals are lazy; even the ones that have some difference between action & non-action scenes tend to be at a much lower ratio than it would be on a CCE backup.

Well, at any rate, feel free to e-mail me if an option to do the whole movie is ever implimented (and maybe process priority control for external encoders) and I'd be happy to buy a pro copy. Laters.

[dragongodz]

I know, for instance, when I don't know the right search terms to actually find what I'm looking for. You'll have to forgive my infamiliarity with the jargon. Maybe inexcusable as long as I've been doing this.
well you could have used something like "whole movie", you would of got plenty more unrelated hits but related ones would have been in there too. :)

So, I read those threads. I'm not convinced that doing it cell-by-cell, even when based on the original bitrate distribution, is optimal. The people who encode the originals are lazy; even the ones that have some difference between action & non-action scenes tend to be at a much lower ratio than it would be on a CCE backup.
if the movie was encoded at a cell per time and the people decided how much each cell should have then yes it may be their fault. however i somehow doubt 99.99999% of movies are encoded that way, especially by these lazy people as you call them. i would think most are encoded full to start with. as such the encoder should give a reasonably good bitrate distribution for the original.

if you can show a heap of cases where doing full movie infact works better for the whole movie, not just a scene or 2 looks better because the adverse could be true aswell - that is those scenes look better but others look worse, then jdobbs may listen to you. i wouldnt hold my breath though since he has said before he has tested this and found his way more preferable.

[bouis]

They're "lazy" because they have plenty of space to work with and it's safer to keep a higher bitrate at all times.

I took a look at the rebuilder.inf file for Kingdom of Heaven and all the segments have the same reduction (70.0) listed. Is that what I think it is?

[dragongodz]

They're "lazy" because they have plenty of space to work with and it's safer to keep a higher bitrate at all times.
yes there are dvds that have very little on them and short movies etc so are high bitrate but thats hardly true all the time. look at how some dvds jam on lots of extras. the space has to come from somewhere.

I took a look at the rebuilder.inf file for Kingdom of Heaven and all the segments have the same reduction (70.0) listed. Is that what I think it is?
sorry, cant read minds so dont know what you think it is. :D
ok seriously, so they are all reduced by the same amount. try enabling "steal space from extras" if you want to see that change i guess. however for the moment load the rebuilder.log and go to the bottom. what do you see for the HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: ? these are the average bitrates for the segments. so the segment with the highest average bitrate = the HIGH value etc.
i am guessing you will have fun reading this thread
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=101523

[bouis]

Very interesting.

I can see how, under some circumstances, this method could be all right, or even comparable to a full-movie CCE VBR. What I worry about is all the situations where it would work poorly -- lazy encodes, CBR, etc. I can also see it messing up filters like Decomb.

I just don't see any pros to outweigh the cons.

[jptheripper]

how many times is this friggin issue gonna be raised

you are complaining about something you _think_ is wrong, and you are mistaken

tests and case studies have shown the method is sound, and it is necessary for the way rebuilder functions,

if you want it different, write your own tool