CINEMA CRAFT Encoder SP3

[Fishman0919]

For anyone interested...

CINEMA CRAFT ® Encoder SP3 (CCE-SP3) is a MPEG2 software encoder that enables you to create the ultimate level of picture quality at high speed. There is a growing need for much higher picture quality in DVD production industry. In addition to CCE-SP2, CCE-SP3 includes "CINEMA CRAFT ® Xtream" (CCX) encode engine that is highly rated by many compressionists around the world and has been utilised to create a considerable number of DVD titles.

LINK for Specs (http://www.cinemacraft.com/en/ccesp3_spec.html)

[MatLz]

anyone interested...not me....I have not 1000$ to spend for that when free softwares can do the job...

[Lyris]

I'm curious to see if the free encoders can match the quality (of SP2). I haven't done a proper comparison, but the ones I tried a few years ago were more at the level of quality of TMPGenc (very good, but not insane like CCE).

I just hope there is an upgrade path for users going from SP2 to SP3, otherwise I probably won't bother considering the results SP2 can produce.

[Ghitulescu]

2 GB of RAM needed?

[ron spencer]

2 GB of RAM needed?


Probably because of the updated copy protection driver crapola....needs USB key, so 2 GB needed so your machine does not slow to an absolute crawl....gag me.

[jethro]

I'm curious to see if the free encoders can match the quality (of SP2). I haven't done a proper comparison, but the ones I tried a few years ago were more at the level of quality of TMPGenc (very good, but not insane like CCE).

HCenc, and especially the latest beta(s), has very good quality.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1374792#post1374792

For low bitrate (where you see compression artifact clearly) I liked high AQ (3 or 4), Manono3 matrix, dc 8bit.

[Lyris]

I just tried HCenc out, and I agree that the quality is very good. However, CCE SP2 is still slightly better from the test I did. The fact that HCenc is free is very nice, though :) Does it pass verification for replication?

Here are some sharpened views of some quick test encodes I just did. I only sharpened the view to make differences more obvious, NOT the input to the encoder. Edit: these are all at about 8mbps average, 8.5mbps max.

Source (PAL Digital Betacam captured via SDI, scaled to 720x480):
http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/source.png

HCEnc "Manono3" matrix:
http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/hcenc_manono.png

HCEnc default matrix:
http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/hcenc_default.png

Cinema Craft SP2:
http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/sp2.png

HCenc is not bad, but the way it coarsely quantizes some blocks reminds me of TMPGenc (that's a compliment) :) CCE SP2 retains the grain to a better extent and the fact that it looks so close to the master makes the $2K I paid for it feel like a bargain, frankly. If SP3 can do this or better for half the price...

[hank315]

IMHO it's not the right way to judge quality by showing just one frame.
It may be clear that I can produce some pics which show the opposite.

[Lyris]

One thing is for sure - both encoders are much, much better than what a lot of DVD production facilities seem to be using.

[Lyris]

It's SD only. A few encoders can produce HD MPEG-2, Sonic Cinevision, Sony's hardware encoder, etc. There are probably various other hardware encoders being used to encode MPEG2 trailers, bonus features, etc.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that CCE-HD looks like a repackaged, generic AVC encoder?

[lithoc]

CCE-SP3 is not even HD compaitible and restricted up to 720x576 @ 15mbps which I think is not a smart move for a payware when you can get HD for free with HC-ENC

[Lyris]

I've always wondered, but how do hardware encoders, standards converters, and other devices work? Are they like expansion cards that are attached to a PC, perhaps at the PCI bus? Are they embedded systems or black boxes that you would put on a rack and access over network protocols? Would you daisy chain these to create a complete encoding workflow?

A lot of them are black boxes with SDI inputs and outputs. Some of them can be controlled by a computer, some have controls on the front of the device, and I imagine many of them can work both ways.

[Biggiesized]

CCE SP3 is limited to the specs of MPEG-2 MP/ML. Why is this so strange to some of you? It's a standard definition encoder.

[Lyris]

I'm more surprised that anyone is even interested in using MPEG2 for HD anymore... although I certainly wouldn't complain if CCE SP3 was capable of it.

[gizzin]

HC has a problem with dark flat scenes. At lower bitrates HC is way better quality than cce. HC is Better at interlaced material. At higher bitrates they look very similar (3500+). One is free other costs alot of money. I think we know who the clear winner is.

[Biggiesized]

HC has a problem with dark flat scenes. At lower bitrates HC is way better quality than cce. HC is Better at interlaced material. At higher bitrates they look very similar (3500+). One is free other costs alot of money. I think we know who the clear winner is.
Would you like to run some tests to confirm this?

CCE has adjustable quantization matrices for very low and ultra low bit rates.

[Lyris]

I respectfully disagree that CCE is beaten at low bit rates. For example, I just encoded this same scene at ~3.5mbps, max 4mbps with both encoders:

Sharpened views as usual: source frame (http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/source2.png), HCEnc (http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/low_hcenc.png), CCE SP2 (http://landofwhimsy.com/upload/low_cce.png).
These results seem to be fairly consistent... but maybe we should have an MPEG2 encoder shootout thread :)

(This was using the default QM for each encoder, BTW). I'm on the verge of purchasing SP3 and if/when I do, I'll add some shots here to show how it compares.

[thewebchat]

x264 beats all of them! :devil:

[gizzin]

low bitrates is 2000 or less. do some tests for yourself u'll see what im saying.

[Lyris]

Ah - I've never had to resort to a bit rate that low! Well, now they both look like soup without pre-processing :) It's the same story though - with this particular source at least, CCE produces even degradation whereas HCEnc has blocks which still stand out. Furthermore, it (CCE) has the benefit of the lowpass filter which you could use in extreme cases such as this.

Keep in mind also that encoding master quality video to DVD is very different to re-encoding an already compressed DVD source, which I imagine will have been subjected to lowpassing and temporal smoothing anyway.

Anyway - if anyone else picks up SP3 before I do, please share your impressions :)

x264 beats all of them! No debate! :o

[kolak]

Anyway - if anyone else picks up SP3 before I do, please share your impressions :)



There is delay in shipping, but I should have it s soon as it's available, so I will let you know.

[Lyris]

Kolak, any update yet? Which distributor are you using, is it ROM Data UK?

[Emulgator]

I got such a nice SP3 offer for around 3xx euros +tax, even an order confirmation,
but it was withdrawn after 2 days by the german distributor.
I started to develop some hope...

[kolak]

Kolak, any update yet? Which distributor are you using, is it ROM Data UK?

No- German one.
I'm waiting for confirmation about shipping date.

[*.mp4 guy]

CCE is clearly using more aggressive psy optimizations then HC.

Also I almost never feed unprocessed video into an encoder, you have to do prep work to get the most out of any encoder, X264, HC, Xvid, Tmpeg, if you are dealing with a limited bitrate, you need to make sure your source is compression friendly.

[Lyris]

What sort of video are you talking about (recompressing compressed video or studio stuff?) and what sort of prep work? My goal is always reproduce the source (although that source may have had cleanup work done...)

[Lyris]

Sorry to be impatient - any impressions yet?

[kolak]

Sorry to be impatient - any impressions yet?

Next week :)

[*.mp4 guy]

What sort of video are you talking about (recompressing compressed video or studio stuff?) and what sort of prep work? My goal is always reproduce the source (although that source may have had cleanup work done...)

I've never worked with really high quality stuff (film transfers). Panasonic AG-DVX100B's are the best I've worked on for any length of time.

Yeah, ok, the panasonics could sometimes give more or less perfect video, but that is by no means something that can be relied on, especially when you have to hit really low bit rates (web video, bitrate spike creating shots). Also, I refuse to use lowpass filters, good denoising is imo far better visually.

[Lyris]

Ah, that makes sense. I agree, not *once* have I found a use for the Lowpass filter. I suppose it made sense in theory when capturing from analogue sources that only had gunk the high frequencies, but not any more - I've never seen it make compression artefacts more pleasant.

[mp3dom]

Lowpass is used to limit compression artefacts, in particular the mosquito noise often visible in animation footage. In animation you have both low (color pattern) and high frequencies (the edges) together. If the edges are very sharp, the mosquito noise will be noticeable (especially in CCE which suffer a lot from mosquito noise). Lowpass is useful to cut the high frequencies so the sharp edge will became more soften. The CCE defaults apply this filter too strong, IMHO, since it's quite visible the loss of sharpening on big screen. Sometimes the lowpass needs to be used, since the mosquito noise (or similar artefacts) are more disturbing than the lowpass filter itself (you can anyway denoise the source as mp4guy said, but it could not be enough if your animation, for example, doesn't have any noise).

[Lyris]

Yeah, I understand the rationale behind essentially blurring the image - but I've yet to see a case where it makes a definite visible improvement myself.

[kolak]

Next week :)

Did some quick test with SP3 against CCE-SP (on film source) and as predicted- much better quality. The biggest impact is due to Adaptive GOP feature- it does simulate thousands of possible structures during each pass- works very well.
Motion estimation is better, also better fades, cross fades and pans. It also preserves grain better (even better than SP) and has 3 new powerful parameters to adjust encoding settings depending on source type. Speed is not as fast as predicted (about 6x faster than RT), but it's due to virtual passes and all adaptive features (GOP and matrixes). 50-70% usage of 8 cores- quite good.
Nice product- new GUI, but still not very good (prefer old one) :)
Another important test will be with interlaced sources.

[Lyris]

Excellent :)

and has 3 new powerful parameters to adjust encoding settings depending on source type.
What are these parameters?

[kolak]

Excellent :)


What are these parameters?

Activity, Luma, Residue :)

[Lyris]

Just read the manual on the CCE web site (it's up now). Look forward to using it!

[kolak]

Just read the manual on the CCE web site (it's up now). Look forward to using it!

Yes- they have just posted update. Manual comes with installer- this one is updated.
There is lots to improve in therms of GUI and usability, but engine is solid and very good:)

[Biggiesized]

kolak, did you compare with SP or SP2?

[Lyris]

Were there any actual engine changes from SP to SP2 or was it just GUI updates and accepting higher-than-SD input?
My SP3 is on its way :)

[kolak]

kolak, did you compare with SP or SP2?

SP, but SP and SP2 are preaty the same in terms of quality.

[Emulgator]

SP and SP2 are preaty the same in terms of quality.
I thought so too...

[Fishman0919]

SP and SP2 were the same. Same engine and same quality.

SP2 GUI was updated and small minor bug fixes were added after SP was discontinued.

[Biggiesized]

What amazes me, after reading the release notes, is that SP3 had major bugs at release like this one:

[Fix] In the previous version, encoding failed when chapter was set. This problem has been fixed

You're telling me they didn't even have chapter insertion figured out?! LOL

This fix from the first update is even better:

[Fix] Quit menu was not functioned. It has been fixed.

Hahaha

[mp3dom]

The SP3 core is based on CTC-Xtream which is a top rank online encoder. It's a total different product.

[kolak]

The SP3 core is based on CTC-Xtream which is a top rank online encoder. It's a total different product.

To be more precise, it has both engines, but I'm not sure how do they work (switch).

[Lyris]

Just got my SP3 this morning. Right now my reception to it is somewhat lukewarm. The GUI really needs work; there seems to be a bug where setting an Output file path will not display the new location/filename in the GUI. I'm sure these will be addressed in time and I'll find suitable workarounds.

Can't say I've seen any quality increase so far, but then again I am encoding at ~8mbps and filling the entire DVD9. I'll do some tests later with lower bit rates (~6mbps average) which I'll need to use for an upcoming 3-hour feature film project. Still need to read the manual (PDF, no printed version this time, which is fine by me) and figure out Segment Re-encode, which was the main reason for me buying.

[kolak]

Just got my SP3 this morning. Right now my reception to it is somewhat lukewarm. The GUI really needs work; there seems to be a bug where setting an Output file path will not display the new location/filename in the GUI. I'm sure these will be addressed in time and I'll find suitable workarounds.

Can't say I've seen any quality increase so far, but then again I am encoding at ~8mbps and filling the entire DVD9. I'll do some tests later with lower bit rates (~6mbps average) which I'll need to use for an upcoming 3-hour feature film project. Still need to read the manual (PDF, no printed version this time, which is fine by me) and figure out Segment Re-encode, which was the main reason for me buying.

It is better than SP/SP2, but only for film sources.
Interlaced is still bad :(

[Lyris]

Fortunately, film sources are my main focus. It's a pity there's no improvement for interlaced content though. Kolak, do you have a preferred DVD-compliant encoder for interlaced material?

Edit: hmm, why has "Shut down when finished encoding" disappeared?

[Lyris]

My luke-warmness has gone, just having a look at the results on a calibrated TV now.
Except on very complex shots, this film material at 8-8.5mbps is basically indistinguishable from the Digital Betacam source. Mostly happy customer :)

[kolak]

Fortunately, film sources are my main focus. It's a pity there's no improvement for interlaced content though. Kolak, do you have a preferred DVD-compliant encoder for interlaced material?

Edit: hmm, why has "Shut down when finished encoding" disappeared?

Feel free to report any issues/wishes to CTC- they do listen and respect customers. The more complains/wishes the better- faster reaction.

ProCoder/Carbon Coder are good for interlaced- bit soft, but no macroblocking.