poopity poop
20th October 2002, 21:03
I would like to share with everyone my findings of a recent test I did basically comparing CCE and TMPEG. I encoded SVCD's of Kenshin Episode 82(not that it matters) 3 times.
1st time CCE SP:
CCE with progressive frames, zigzag , auto DC etc, the stuff in the getting the best of of CCE guide.
bitrate = 350-4000 ave 1820.
1-pass (which means multipass, makes the vaf, then encodes, basically 2 full passes)
2nd time CCE SP:
same as above except:
3-pass (which means 4 total passes)
3rd time TMPEG:
2-pass VBR(VBR) with same bitrate settings as above
Highest motion search precision
everything esle defualt.
To sum everything up: I encoded the same thing with the same bitrates, using the same average bitrate, just did 2 passes with CCE total, 4 passes with CCE total, and a normal highest quality 2-pass with TMPEG
Results:
CCE produced the same file varing by only 10K (one was 341,860K, the other was 341,870K). They were pixel for pixel acurate with each other. In other words, they were the same damn file, no matter how many passes you did. Yes I looked at high motion scenes, low motion scenes, flash of light and the frames sourounding them, even fading in from black(where it looks real crappy no matter what you do :) ). They were pixel for pixel accurate, no blocking during high motion or anything, very clean, very nice encode.
TMPEG produced a VERY high quality encode that(of course) was not pixel for pixel accurate with the CCE encode(being a different program, duh!). But there were no blocking, and no difference or concentrations of any more or less ringing artifacts present in any of the frames I looked at, then the CCE encode. The ringing was either more or less present in some scenes that CCE, but on the flip side, CCE has more or less ringing in some scenes than TMPEG..just being different encoders.
Conclusion:
CCE is faster, which is nice, but doesn't change ANYTHING from more than 2 total passes(1 pass setting in the settings dialog).
TMPEG produced a file that was EXACTLY same the same quality as CCE even on 2 total passes in CCE.
oh wait...CCE doens't maximize the dual processor loading very well, so TMPEG processes almost as fast at CCE. Making TMPEG( at least for those of us with dual processors) a leagl way to produce a high quality encode for FREE! Yes.. no one ACTUAL bought CCE SP, its all hush hush here abotu warez, but we all know...
Anyway...TMPEG passed my inspection for being just as good as CCE. And CCE disappointed me by producing the same file file pixel for pixel, and byte for byte(within resonable tolerance or error). For all those who think CCE i the mother of all encoding programs: try TMPEG on highest motion search precision. nuff said.
1st time CCE SP:
CCE with progressive frames, zigzag , auto DC etc, the stuff in the getting the best of of CCE guide.
bitrate = 350-4000 ave 1820.
1-pass (which means multipass, makes the vaf, then encodes, basically 2 full passes)
2nd time CCE SP:
same as above except:
3-pass (which means 4 total passes)
3rd time TMPEG:
2-pass VBR(VBR) with same bitrate settings as above
Highest motion search precision
everything esle defualt.
To sum everything up: I encoded the same thing with the same bitrates, using the same average bitrate, just did 2 passes with CCE total, 4 passes with CCE total, and a normal highest quality 2-pass with TMPEG
Results:
CCE produced the same file varing by only 10K (one was 341,860K, the other was 341,870K). They were pixel for pixel acurate with each other. In other words, they were the same damn file, no matter how many passes you did. Yes I looked at high motion scenes, low motion scenes, flash of light and the frames sourounding them, even fading in from black(where it looks real crappy no matter what you do :) ). They were pixel for pixel accurate, no blocking during high motion or anything, very clean, very nice encode.
TMPEG produced a VERY high quality encode that(of course) was not pixel for pixel accurate with the CCE encode(being a different program, duh!). But there were no blocking, and no difference or concentrations of any more or less ringing artifacts present in any of the frames I looked at, then the CCE encode. The ringing was either more or less present in some scenes that CCE, but on the flip side, CCE has more or less ringing in some scenes than TMPEG..just being different encoders.
Conclusion:
CCE is faster, which is nice, but doesn't change ANYTHING from more than 2 total passes(1 pass setting in the settings dialog).
TMPEG produced a file that was EXACTLY same the same quality as CCE even on 2 total passes in CCE.
oh wait...CCE doens't maximize the dual processor loading very well, so TMPEG processes almost as fast at CCE. Making TMPEG( at least for those of us with dual processors) a leagl way to produce a high quality encode for FREE! Yes.. no one ACTUAL bought CCE SP, its all hush hush here abotu warez, but we all know...
Anyway...TMPEG passed my inspection for being just as good as CCE. And CCE disappointed me by producing the same file file pixel for pixel, and byte for byte(within resonable tolerance or error). For all those who think CCE i the mother of all encoding programs: try TMPEG on highest motion search precision. nuff said.