A new encoder...

[BL_pAstA]

Now there's three different encoder to choose between.

1. Cinema Craft Encoder SP 2.5

2. TMpeg

And the new:

3. Canopus Pro

Which one is best to make S-VCD:s?
I've heard that the CCE 2.5 is better than TMpeg. But how much better, nearly the same quallity? Please tell me the difference.

Is there anyone who have tested the Canopus Pro? Is it good? How fast is it? How is Canopus compared to the others?

/pasta:devil:

[homerjay]

hehehhe i posted a similar thread a few months back

easiest thing to do is do a search on my name and you will get all the info you need ;)

[dvd2svcd]

Here's what I think the common opinion are:

DVD/PVA to DVD/SVCD: Cinema Craft Encoder
DVD/PVA to VCD: TMPGEnc
DV (cam) to DVD/SVCD/VCD: ProCoder
AVI to whatever: I have no idea

But as it is with all these "what is best" questions the quality is in the eye and ears of the beholder.

[sehh]

I'd like to add that CCE v2.66 is waaaay better than v2.50.

Make the change to 2.66 as soon as possible, it makes a big difference!

[BL_pAstA]

But does DVD2SVCD suport version 2.66??

Don't you have to use frameserving then?
And doesn't frameserving slow down the encoding with 300% or something??

I don't know...?

/Pasta :devil:

[ralphthedog]

Yes, CCE 2.66/2.67 works great (with the plugin eclCCE).

No, you don't need frameserving.

[KYUSS]

Originally posted by dvd2svcd
Here's what I think the common opinion are:

DVD/PVA to DVD/SVCD: Cinema Craft Encoder
DVD/PVA to VCD: TMPGEnc
DV (cam) to DVD/SVCD/VCD: ProCoder
AVI to whatever: I have no idea

But as it is with all these "what is best" questions the quality is in the eye and ears of the beholder.


that summary sounds about right to me too

CCE is brilliant with mpeg2 (dvd/svcd) but i found it to be terrible with VCD.....but there seems to be a lot more written about svcd for CCE than VCD for CCE so i gained a lot more knowledge on CCE with regards to setting up CCE for SVCD and setting up DVD2SVCD for doing SVCDS.

[canoner]

Originally posted by dvd2svcd
Here's what I think the common opinion are:

DVD/PVA to DVD/SVCD: Cinema Craft Encoder
DVD/PVA to VCD: TMPGEnc
DV (cam) to DVD/SVCD/VCD: ProCoder
AVI to whatever: I have no idea

But as it is with all these "what is best" questions the quality is in the eye and ears of the beholder.

For DVD to SVCD, I like TMPG CQ. It is much faster than CCE 2.66 2 pass. Quality is good. the only draw back is that CD image size cannot be accurately predicted. I am getting good at it now, by adjusting the file size factore, I can get the second CD between 780-830MB 95% of time, and below 780MB the rest 5% of times.

[Erich99]

Originally posted by sehh
I'd like to add that CCE v2.66 is waaaay better than v2.50.

Make the change to 2.66 as soon as possible, it makes a big difference!

hi, when you say that the CCE 2.66 is way better than 2.50, what exactly do you mean? In which way is it better? In terms of quality, or in terms of speed? Please explain in more detail

[sehh]

Sure, here we go:

1) Speed is better. Atleast 20% faster for me (SMP system).

2) Quality is better. Thus a 2.5 hour movie (Harry Potter 2)
was encoded into 2 cd's with the same quality of three cd's. My
settings for both 2 cd and 3 cd versions are VBR 3-pass.

3) In terms of usability, the encoding window has a lot more
information, and displays the number of the current pass and
the total passes. Much better than before!

Is that enough for you?

I'd suggest you make the change as soon as possible :)

[markrb]

Personally I have tried all the versions and continue to use 2.5.
I never found the speed to be better, but I have a single CPU computer and as for the qaulity I couldn't see much(if any)difference.

I may give 2.66/2.67 another shot though.

Mark

[sehh]

I don't think you'll see a huge difference with a 1.5 hour movie,
but once you try to fit a longer movie in two CDs then thats where
2.66 makes a big difference.

[ralphthedog]

I switched to 2.67 after using 2.5 for ages.
Don't think there's any real difference in speed for 2.67 (single AMD CPU), but I think a cleaner picture with fewer artifacts(3 pass VBR). I really noticed when I changed back to 2.5 to doublecheck.

I do PAL, mostly interlaced, so this might not apply to everyone.

Think I remember reading that different matrices have a much greater effect on 2.66/2.67, but haven't had a fiddle with that.

[homerjay]

matrices certainly do have a bigger effect in 2.67 as far as i have seen, i use d2sroba to do 1 pass 1 cd svcd's and i reencoded the same film after upgrading and the quality improvement is off the scale :D

[t1955feb]

Originally posted by sehh
Sure, here we go:

1) Speed is better. Atleast 20% faster for me (SMP system).

2) Quality is better. Thus a 2.5 hour movie (Harry Potter 2)
was encoded into 2 cd's with the same quality of three cd's. My
settings for both 2 cd and 3 cd versions are VBR 3-pass.

3) In terms of usability, the encoding window has a lot more
information, and displays the number of the current pass and
the total passes. Much better than before!

Is that enough for you?

I'd suggest you make the change as soon as possible :)

For me cce 2.50 rocks tried cce 2.66 encoding speed cce 2.66 (1320)
and the encoding speed of cce 2.50 (1451) so for me cce 2.50 is the winner

[markrb]

It might have something to do with how you are using CCE.
I only do DVD->DVD now so my bitrates can average as high as 5500Kbit.
They hardly ever drop below 3800Kbit Avg for any movie I do even if I decide to keep the extra's.

I also use no resize method or filters of any kind, except for maybe CCE's built in noise filter.

Mark

[sehh]

Personaly i only do SVCD's.

I use 3-pass VBR, bicubic resize, anti-noise filter with default values,
permanent subtitles, 2 CDs only even for long movies.

Speed is quite good at 1.6, considering my athlons 1.2ghz.

[ralphthedog]

I'm doing mostly DVD nowadays, I only use CCE's antinoise filter for SVCD's.

I always thought CCE 2.5 slowed down somewhat with the antinoise filter on?

I've been kind of alternating between no resize at all and leaving the resize line in the .avs, there is no speed advantage without Bilinear(0.5)/BicubicResize. I mostly use Undot(), and Unfilter(-5,-5) if I'm worried about lowish bitrates and I want to help compression

The CCE templates work nicely too, I have one for every occasion.

Homerjay, do you have any suggestions for matricies that are better than 2.67 standard? I do seem to live in a land of interlaced PAL, so that might be a tough question though.

[sehh]

I would be interested to hear about matricies as well.

I've never used them, but i've heard that you can fit
a 2 hour movie on a single CD with small amounts of losses (kvcd).

[telemike]

Using Tylo's file prediction plugin and Motion Adaptive Filtering scripts, you can fit 2 hours of svcd video on 1-cd with pretty good quality. I personally let the plugin determine the number of cd's to use by setting my worst 'Q' value for 1-pass VBR OPV method.

[DDogg]

One thing we have found is that the latest versions of CCE treats and reacts very differently with matrices. Bach's position that matrices made no difference was based upon his use of much earlier version of CCE. I believe he has now changed that viewpoint somewhat as he experiments with the 2.67.00.11 version. One of his suggestions for low bitrates is to use a combination of the standard intra and the kvcd non-intra. Just copy and paste it at the bottom of your matrices.ini file in the D2S directory. You can find that matrix here:http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=365930#post365930

Also, personally I now think 2 hours is not normally viable, more like 90 to 100 minutes maybe. It really just depends on the compressibility of the source which can differ radically. I found in my tests, as Bach mentioned a long time ago, a Q of 40 or less is about the limit to have good quality as a rule of thumb. As always, quality is judged by the eye of the beholder and some people may be ok with Q as high as 50, whereas I will not go much higher than Q 30-36.