hc or cce

[Carpo]

now im not going to ask which is best, but what i would like to know is which would you choose - hc or cce - one being free the other being $60 - now i know that $60 may not seem like much to some ppl but if you have a young family to support and have a morgage and such would that be a factor in your choice ?

or like me unemployed atm so money is tight - thats why i use hc :o

[Malphas]

HC. Personally, I'm happy with the results and don't find the difference between the two encoders to be significant enough to warrant the $60.

[spuddog]

I use CCE

[Rockas]

I've been, mostly, using CCE (2.50) - runs much faster on my AMD system, but now that I've been testing Dual Runs on my P4 HT laptop I will be using HC frequently... the speed is getting closer to CCE :)

[m1ckran]

After trying out HC and Qenc, I use HC but I don't have CCE.


@Rockas
Your comments are interesting. They suggest that you prefer HC but use CCE because it's faster. Is that right?

[Rockas]

@m1ckran
Well... I simply don't have preferences :)
None of them is my favourite and they both are :)

They have similar quality (on my eyes)... I just used to use CCE (2.50) 'cause my test computer (an old AMD XP2000+) is a lot faster with it...

I recently bought a laptop P4 3.2GHZ HT so I'll be using HC more often 'cause now I can run fast tests using it too :)

[lantern]

I use CCE primarily because, well, I already own it. If I didn't already own it, I would use HC. Quality is pretty close.

[l8nights]

hmm I use both, I'm afraid this is a can of worms here!
but I 'll bite different situations call for different encoders in my case I usually preffer hc's quality and you cannot beat free I personally would rather donate to a free prog. created by someone in the community than buy a prog that is it's equal from some corporation!

however I find my self turning to cce quite frequently for dvd's that I end up backing up numerous times such as kid's movies! or for testing/comparing machine times!
just for the speed!

[m1ckran]

@Rockas & @I8nights & @lantern

Thanks for your comments. Some people can get pretty fanatical about CCE and I was wondering whether I should invest to see for myself. After all, the only foolproof way to find out is to form your own opinion. Your balanced opinions now lead me to think that I should stick with HC.

Currently, I'm perfectly happy with HC and DVD-RB and I have no qualms about donating to the authors. On a slightly different tack, does anyone know how much of a DVD-RB donation is allocated to the authors of the several component applications? If jdobbs receives the entire donation (no problem with that), I would also like to contribute to the other authors.

It's truly amazing that individuals can produce free/donationware applications that are of sufficient quality to compare with expensive commercial releases. I really do admire the many people who produce the goods for us (too many to mention here) and I hope they can continue to do so for as long as they wish.

PS "I8nights" - like that one! :D

[SAPSTAR]

I use AutoQMatEnc :D

[Carpo]

dont make me slap u ;) (hc vs autoqmatenc is next - well, who ever wins this poll is anyway)

anyway did some tests today - using as many passes as cce sp would do (i did this on purpose) now apart from the time and size of the different m2vs i found that cces output with all the extra passes are only slightly bigger - where as the pic qual was near the same, well HC output looked cleaner)

eg test.m2v - cce - 80meg
test.m2v - HC - 79.9meg

cce basic and HC gave near same results, but after doing the tests im more in favour of HC

[Skunk]

I personally have never used CCE, but I am pretty happy with HC so far. Like L8nights said, there are different situations that might call for different encoders. Sometimes I will go for a long road trip so I will bring a few backups. Then I will use ReJig because quality is not a big deal. I may just toss them later. If I am doing a CG source, or interleaved sections I use ProCoder.
So to rap it up..... lol
I like more than one encoder, but HC does the bulk of my backups. If I had CCE I might use it, but I think HC does such a good job that the value far outweighs any minor improvement CCE MIGHT be.

[RIPRECOBACK]

I'm in favour of CCE.

Simply because it delivers the best results IMO, especially since 2.7.4.2.

It has come to my notion that there are trial versions of CCESP full, that do not have a logo or time limitation.

I don't know if these are legal or illegal releases, you can't tell in any way.

I do not recommend nor advise the use of illegal versions.

But I know people using CCETSPT versions that works well, and don't put a logo or time restriction in the output, but I don't know if these are official trial releases or not. There is no way to tell the difference however.

[Carpo]

im doing a face of if you will of encoders, procoder may find its way here if some nice person buys it for me :) at $699 it may not tho

[Skunk]

I was blessed with a working copy of ProCoder when I bought my new PC. The guy who I bought it from left all sorts of software on there. I had no idea procoder was so expensive, but the little usb key should have tipped me off. :D

[RIPRECOBACK]

Luckey you, although youre probably not entitled to use it :D

Well although if you have the dongle.......
and youre registration number.


Microsoft even want to pay you FOR EVERY COPY of WINDOWS !!!

So if you own 7 PC's , just start counting..........

But it is still strange to see how many people use CCETSPT.EXE.......

Probably explained by the circulation of versions that do not have restrictions or a logo in the output......

[Skunk]

I don't see why I wouldn't be entitled to use it. I see it like he just handed over his registration and software to me. They got paid for it and still only one person is using it.

I have XP on all 3 of my PCs right now and I installed them all from the same disk with the same key. I had no problems.

Anyways. As far as procoder goes, I would never pay that much for it. There are other encoders that can match it every step of the way for much less $$

[rendez2k]

Although I prefer the quality of HC on the whole, I like CCE because I can use RB-Opt!

Edit: Would love to see comparisons and opinions of HC/CCE vs autoqmatenc!

[gobama05]

CCE for me, I have used HC before. The results were very good, but I felt that CCE's looked better. Procoder is also excellent, although on my machine it will take 4 hours on Mastering Quality. But I look for great quality, and I set it to run while I am sleeping anyway. Cheers :)

[SAPSTAR]

dont make me slap u ;) (hc vs autoqmatenc is next - well, who ever wins this poll is anyway)

anyway did some tests today - using as many passes as cce sp would do (i did this on purpose) now apart from the time and size of the different m2vs i found that cces output with all the extra passes are only slightly bigger - where as the pic qual was near the same, well HC output looked cleaner)

eg test.m2v - cce - 80meg
test.m2v - HC - 79.9meg

cce basic and HC gave near same results, but after doing the tests im more in favour of HC
In fact I think you're trying to compare potatoes and pears...
HC is very good at : Interlaced material, low-medium bitrates
CCE is very good at : Progressive material, high bitrates

Each encoder has its strength and weaknesses.

So I would say, if I had to choose I would choose HC.
It's free, and usually my DVDs are rather highly compressed.

[jptheripper]

sorry to slide a touch off topic, but does that mean, for disks like the jetsons dvds that are tv interlaced with medium ish bitrates HC might be a better choice?

also the low/med/high bitrates you mention.. is that source or reencoded bitrate

[Carpo]

In fact I think you're trying to compare potatoes and pears...
HC is very good at : Interlaced material, low-medium bitrates
CCE is very good at : Progressive material, high bitrates

Each encoder has its strength and weaknesses.

So I would say, if I had to choose I would choose HC.
It's free, and usually my DVDs are rather highly compressed.

so would that be the same if i had said cce and autoqmatenc ?
:D

and im not comparing anything i asked which ppl used and why - i only posted about the test as it shows me that hc would be better for me due to time and money

[SAPSTAR]

sorry to slide a touch off topic, but does that mean, for disks like the jetsons dvds that are tv interlaced with medium ish bitrates HC might be a better choice?

also the low/med/high bitrates you mention.. is that source or reencoded bitrate
For TV Episodes disks...HC is defintly better, because they are interlaced and in general the compression is high so the bitrate is low.

[SAPSTAR]

so would that be the same if i had said cce and autoqmatenc ?
:D

and im not comparing anything i asked which ppl used and why - i only posted about the test as it shows me that hc would be better for me due to time and money
I would say yes....CCE is so fast and good at high bitrates...it's really hard to beat it !!!

[Kriz]

Since this is a CCE thread, I thought I'd ask my question here:

A friend of mine showed me how to backup DVDs with DVDRB and CCE (he used an illegal copy of SP), and set it at 10 passes. He said doing that ensures that the backup looks exactly like the original.

I don't like pirating software, so I was wondering this: if I buy CCE Basic, can I still set a high number of passes in DVDRB? I read that Basic was limited to 2 passes, but perhaps RB could work around that somehow? Could the Pro version of DVDRB do that?

[jptheripper]

no.. basic is set to 2.. however your friend is mistaken

even the cce manual says more than 3-4 passes is a waste of time, and the number of passes has very little to do with "looking like the original". The amount of compression and complexity of the source are the primary determining factors of that.

basically your friend is spouting misinformation as truth, and is wrong.

cce basic at 2 pass looks amazing most of the time. Alot of the free encoders (autoqmapenc, HC, etc.. ) do as well

[Rockas]

@Kriz
Man... if I had to put CCE at ten passes to have a great quality.... well... I wouldn't do any backups... the time it will take is enough to make an original movie... searching for actors included :D

[Skunk]

Will CCE do all 10 passes every time? AutoQMatEnc will stop once the target size for that segment is reached and skip all other passes if I remember correctly. Does CCE do this as well?

[SpazzHH]

Will CCE do all 10 passes every time? AutoQMatEnc will stop once the target size for that segment is reached and skip all other passes if I remember correctly. Does CCE do this as well?

CCE does the set number of passes everytime.

[jdobbs]

But, of course, you tell it how many passes to do. The best setting is 2 passes. If you have a disc that is exceptionally hard to do (for example a movie that you know is very long) you may want to go as high as 3 passes.

The quality return for the extra passes is reduced exponentially with each one added. The difference between 3 and 4 passes isn't detectable to my eyes. The difference between 9 and 10 passes would be the equivalent of peeing in the ocean and then checking it to see how much it has risen.

[Rockas]

The difference between 9 and 10 passes would be the equivalent of peeing in the ocean and then checking it to see how much it has risen.
Is that a new fishing method? :D

[Harrysmiith]

I now tend to use CCE Basic because I bought it when I started with DVD Rebuilder and because its faster. If I could start again I would probably save the money and just use HC

[SpazzHH]

I use both CCE and HC. CCE on progressive stuff with a bitrate over 2800, and HC on all interlaced and low-bitrate material.
I long for the day that jdobbs has the time to incorporate into RB the use of multiple encoders for the same project. If the segment is progressive, CCE automatically gets the call. Or if it's interlaced, HC or Procoder takes over. Such things would be heaven on earth. :D

[therat]

Well I must be the odd man out. I prefer CCE but unlike others, to my eyes anyway, I can see a definite difference between setting CCE at 2 passes and setting it at say 6 or 8. The higher the passes the better. I prefer to set it to 6 and just let it run overnight.

cheers

[jptheripper]

i bet you havent done a blind test. Meaning simply (no malice intended) that i bet you think it looks better because in the back of your head you know its more passes. that being said, i do 6 passes

[therat]

i bet you havent done a blind test. Meaning simply (no malice intended) that i bet you think it looks better because in the back of your head you know its more passes. that being said, i do 6 passes

Actually I have and I've also had others look at the finished results of 6 passes -v- 2 (without saing which was which) and in most cases they picked the 6 passes as looking better. They never picked the 2 passes as being better but rather as being the same.

I guess the old saying of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is what counts.