CCE Basic, Should I or not?

[ricoman]

I have RB pro and have been using it with HC and Quenc and am pretty happy with it. Like most of us, I can't afford $2000 for CCE SP, is it worth it for me to spend $58 for Basic? Will the 2 passes it allows be any better than HC or Quenc? If so, please tell me any advantages. Thanks.

[feedback]

I won't speak to advantages, but I will speak to one disadvantage, IMO, of CCE basic and that is you will not be able to choose nor change your Quant. Matrix.

[Trixter]

I won't speak to advantages, but I will speak to one disadvantage, IMO, of CCE basic and that is you will not be able to choose nor change your Quant. Matrix.

The whole point of 2-pass mode is that you won't need to. n-pass VBR, properly implemented, adaptively changes the quantization matrix based on the input's characteristics over time.

To the OP: I'm a happy legal owner of CCE Basic, and it is essentially CCE SP with the following changes:


Removal of the custom bitrate graph/customization
Can't turn off adaptive quant (but why would you want to?)
ABR ("n-pass VBR") limited to 2 passes
While the encoding presets are still there (Normal, CG, Animation), you can't adjust each parameter individually (like dithered quant, etc.). You can still turn them completely off, of course.


...otherwise, it is identical to CCE in speed and quality. I tested my material with ProCoder, CCE, TMPGEnc, and a few free encoders, and CCE came the closest to reproducing what I see on my broadcast monitor at the bitrate limitations I imposed on it. Also, using 10-bit DC coefficients, the colorspace conversion quality was better than the other encoders I tried. I think Basic is a steal at $59.

Some encoders are better at very specific cases; for example, TMPGEnc was better in my testing at static scene fades to/from a solid color (usually black). ProCoder was best at dealing with noisy footage (because, on the "Mastering Quality" setting, it median-filters chroma and probably luma too). TMPGEnc is the hands-down best MPEG-1 encoder. So no one encoder is best at everything.

[feedback]

The whole point of 2-pass mode is that you won't need to. n-pass VBR, properly implemented, adaptively changes the quantization matrix based on the input's characteristics over time.
One does not need to but, for me, I want to change the Quant. Matrix...that is why it is a disadvantage for me. To each his own, eh!

Regards,

P.S. I do use CCE SP quite a bit.

[manono]

Hi-

One does not need to but, for me, I want to change the Quant. Matrix...

Me too. While AQ is certainly an improvement over the Standard Matrix all the time, and is good for people that don't want to take the time to learn how to profitably use matrices, I also much prefer to use a matrix fitting the file size and quality I want. In addition, for those low bitrate extras, a lower bitrate matrix than the Standard matrix (AVAMAT7, CCE's Very Low Bitrate Matrix, etc.) can come in handy.

...TMPGEnc was better in my testing at static scene fades to/from a solid color (usually black).

That's what the "Fades On A Static Scene" checkbox is designed to improve. Old versions, like CCE 2.50, used to have that fade in/out problem, but I haven't noticed it recently. None of that twinkling, sparkling, blocking stuff.

ProCoder was best at dealing with noisy footage (because, on the "Mastering Quality" setting, it median-filters chroma and probably luma too).

I normally encode from clean DVDs, and I usually keep turned off CCE's Low-Pass and Vertical filters (and don't like Procoder for that very reason). But in cases where I do have noisy footage, or want to compress something beyond where I should be compressing it, by turning them on fairly strongly, I can achieve results similar to Procoder.

So, while CCE Basic will be $58 well spent, I think there are several more advantages to the full version.

[jdobbs]

I bought it when it was first introduced and have never regretted it. IMHO it is worth much more than the $58 I spent... It's also my opinon its picture is superior to TMPGEnc. HC is the only encoder I consider to be close in terms of quality -- but it takes about 50% longer.

While I sometimes scratch my head over Custom Technology's configuration management of their ECL file and settings... they sure make a hell of an encoder.

[Trixter]

Me too. While AQ is certainly an improvement over the Standard Matrix all the time, and is good for people that don't want to take the time to learn how to profitably use matrices, I also much prefer to use a matrix fitting the file size and quality I want.

I think you guys misunderstood me -- I certainly support custom quants if all your footage is roughly same. But I have found through experience that, for constantly changing footage (dark, light, sharp, blurry, fast motion, stills, all in the same footage), AQ produces superior results than any single quant matrix can.

...TMPGEnc was better in my testing at static scene fades to/from a solid color (usually black).

That's what the "Fades On A Static Scene" checkbox is designed to improve. Old versions, like CCE 2.50, used to have that fade in/out problem, but I haven't noticed it recently. None of that twinkling, sparkling, blocking stuff.

Yes, but that checkbox doesn't exist on CCE Basic which is what he was asking about, and what I tested with.

So, while CCE Basic will be $58 well spent, I think there are several more advantages to the full version.

Obviously, but we all don't have $1900 to spend on it ;-)