how good is HC these days compared to CCE?

[shon3i]

Is there some trick or matrix to force CCE SP1/SP2 encoder to keep sharp, i always use CCEAQM=1 with DVDRebuilder but CCE picture is 1-2% softer than original.

[DMF]

Geez, how do you measure that small a difference?

[jdobbs]

Is there some trick or matrix to force CCE SP1/SP2 encoder to keep sharp, i always use CCEAQM=1 with DVDRebuilder but CCE picture is 1-2% softer than original.Interesting... because the exact opposite should be true. The CCEAQM setting would lower the matrix values when necessary... making the picture sharper.

[Boulder]

I think he means that it is softer compared to the original source, which usually is true. If he wants sharper output, he should use a sharpener (LimitedSharpenFaster or SeeSaw are two good ones to try out).

[shon3i]

Yep, i mean on that. HC keep original sharpnes, but tend to be little blockly in flat areas like i said before. And CCE smooth picture, but make block-free encoding.

@Boulder, did you have some opinion how to set LimitedSharpen, to force CCE to keep original sharpnes :) Some examples?

[Boulder]

You really need to figure it out yourself, your eyes are the ones you should trust. Experiment, and don't forget to use Soothe() with LSF.

[Video Dude]

I compared HC and CCE at a low bitrate (1900 avg) using DVD-RB.

HC produced a much cleaner encode for the most part compared to CCE. I was surprised how good it looked at such a low bitrate.

But I did find HC had problems with fade from black scene changes. The entire fade was extremely blocky and was enough to distract from the movie. LUMGAIN settings did not seem to help. CCE handled the fade well and blocks were not noticeable.

[rahzel]

I am been using CCE for all my encodes along with DVDRB-PRO and every time when new HC encoder is out i run some test, and always i get some blocks in flat areas like H264. In CCE i use minimum 4passes and 16 Complex/Flat. I get little bluring picture but without blocks in flat areas.
+1... same for me man. i've been using CCE for a long time and have been happy with my results. but because many people say they like HC encoder, specifically with lower bitrates, i keep running out to try the new versions but see the exact same thing you're seeing.

to be fair, i do find HC encoder is a little less noisy and is closer to the source in most cases. but i just can't get over the blocks in flat areas. i also find that these blocks are more noticeable on certain kind of displays. and yes, i've played around with the VBR Bias. interestingly enough, i find older versions of HC produced less blocks in flat areas (0.17 and older).

[jdobbs]

Have you tried adjusting the bias?

[gizzin]

I agree with this totally, I really do think there is problem with the flat areas encoded with HC. Even at higher bitrates which shouldn't be the case. I adjusted the bias and lumgain to no avail. There still blocky. Maybe the people that don't see this using a smaller sized tv?

[rahzel]

I agree with this totally, I really do think there is problem with the flat areas encoded with HC. Even at higher bitrates which shouldn't be the case. I adjusted the bias and lumgain to no avail. There still blocky. Maybe the people that don't see this using a smaller sized tv?
same, i adjusted the vbr bias too, but it even happens with higher bitrate movies. again, older versions of HC did not do this, but ever since 0.18, i have noticed blocks. if there weren't blocks on flat areas, i would have switched to HC a long time ago.

also, as i said earlier, the blocks are more visible on certain types of TV's, not necessarily the size. oddly enough, i actually find that its more noticeable on my 20" CRT direct view TV than my 40" LCD, or 46" rear projection CRT. direct view CRT displays seem to make the blocks more visible. if anyone was wondering, direct view CRT's are those older TV's, the ones we've been using for years. rear projection CRT are those bigger TV's that come with a base attached to the TV, usually with the speakers mounted in the base.

[gizzin]

Let me say this, If you're encoding anything the bitrate will depend on the source always take this into account (ie private ryan, band of brothers etc..). In my personal opinion if you can attain a bitrate of 4000kb you shouldn't be able to notice any difference from the original (I never had blocking at this bitrate). I have done alot of encoding with HC and let me honestly say it is better than CCE. It's clearly better at lower bitrates. And at interlaced encoding. I always use HC now, I never use anything else. I also think that the bias should be set at 30. I've read people complaining that the encodes look bad, and they don't just realize that the bitrate there using for the encode is just to low. I use this as a guide for myself when encoding.

2000kb and under <- why are u backing up this dvd, buy dual layers
2000-3000kb <- u should expect blocking, noise, grain, etc.
3000-4000kb <- this is a iffy region, for the most part you shouldn't have any artifacts
4000kb and up <- golden

[rendez2k]

With HC, do people use normal or best setting? Whats the impact on time to encode vs quality gain?

[linx05]

Always 'best'. I can wait the extra time it takes. If I were impatient I would be using a transcoder ;)

[rendez2k]

Always 'best'. I can wait the extra time it takes. If I were impatient I would be using a transcoder ;)

I've come to that conclusion myself last night - I did my first encode on my new quad core and it took 33mins for the encoding part with HC in best mode! Doesn't seam worth using anything else with times like that.