Rejig 0.5 then CCE?

[MedicatedMinutez]

Should I use Rejig 0.5 after Doitfast4u then to CCE? I know rejig reduces the sizes to many of my files but does this reduce quality?

[Grover]

I'm no expert on ReJig but I believe it to TRANSCODE the video - therefore reducing quality along the way.

You should be able to find out all you need about ReJig here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66777).

Cheers...

[D3s7]

Grover is correct... ReJig is a different type of beast then CCE - one transcodes - one re-encodes... but you should use one or the other.. not both

[foxmid]

I've done the opposite with Pearl Harbor - too large to transcode more than 30%, so ran it through CCE to lower the average bitrate to about 4200, then used rejig to transcode to a smaller, decent quality output.

It seemed to work better than I expected, am I the only one who's tried this?

[D3s7]

wow.. that's a lot more work then needed..

why not just run cce w/ a lower average

[Grover]

I've done the opposite with Pearl Harbor - too large to transcode more than 30%, so ran it through CCE to lower the average bitrate to about 4200, then used rejig to transcode to a smaller, decent quality output. It seemed to work better than I expected, am I the only one who's tried this?
I think you are the only one :D

Why would you use CCE to encode and THEN use a transcoder after that ?

If you're processing your project correctly with CCE then it will end up at the correct size at then end and not need any further size redution. (ie - be able to fit on one recordable DVD+/-R @ 4.37GB)

CCE is an ENCODER and takes a long time and gives excellent results when compared to ReJeig which is a TRANSCODER. Transcoders advantages are they are much quicker but give crappier results at anything other than light (80-90% of original) size compressions. You can find out more about TRANSCODERS here. (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63587)

From my experince a transoders success (in producing a good final result) depends greatly on the quality of the source video (garbage in = garbage out). I personsly have used DVDShrink to transcode a couple of problem DVD's (not mentioning any names Dr Jones...) that I had problems authoring with Big 3. These were run through at around 60% but the results were supringly "good" (although I don't have a HDTV or mega-screen projector or anything fancy like that - just a regular 70cm tube).

What I'm saying is that any results are subjective but the bottom line is that everytime you "process" the video stream you lose some quality.

I don't understand the exact mechanics of the processes enough myself to give a decent explanation here but there is plenty of good reading on this site and these forums to give you a basic understanding of what each method does and the pros/cons of each.

If the original movie is only slightly over 4.37GB then you might get good results using ReJig or DVDShrink or Recode2 compressing to around 85-90% of the original. And it will take 30-60 minutes

But if it's a biggy (like your Pearl Harbour @ 3hours) then you really need to use CCE and reENCODE the video for best results. And will take from several to many hours dependng on your rig.

There are several different "CCE methods". If you follow the "Big 3" method and use CCE to ENCODE then you will end up with exactly 4.37GB of files you can burn to your prefered flavour of blank DVD (+, -, R, RW whatever) Or if you want just movei only then DVD2DVD-R could be another way. Either of these will do the bitrate maths for you and give you 4.37GB at the end.

Good Luck Man and Happy New Year. (X-MAS is over now right...;))

Cheers...