Best quality of CCE 2.50/2.66/2.67 ???

[kingpicus]

I'm looking for Hi-End quality.
I work on DVCam source and make final DVD at max 9000Kbits/sec
which the quality best one of CCE 2.50/2.66/2.67???
on the web I have see this test:

http://sch-yuri.narod.ru/DVD/the_cce_2.htm

possible? old version have a better quality???
In the readme Custom Technology write:
"Picture quality has improved"
False !!!

Anyone have a more info and more test?

Thank's
Enrico

[KeyserSoze]

try here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65002

I have tested a cracked 2.50 with my Retail 2.67 SP with DVD-RB and BitrateViewer and even if my A64 is much faster in 2.50, the 2.67 has better image quality than 2.50 (cracked one)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

(BitrateViewer Q.Level MUCH lower in 2.67(Retail) than 2.50(illegal one) using the same corresponding settings in both from 9 testing of various films ,4 times VBR,One pass VBR).

[buzzqw]

@KeyserSoze

ISTANTLY EDIT YOUR POST !!!
NO WAREZ HERE!!!!

BHH

[KeyserSoze]

@buzzqw

What warez?????????

My 2.67(2.66 updated to 2.67) is 100% legal!!!!!!!!!

My findings prove that my 2.67 is a legal one;)

You see a cracked 2.50 is always superior to a cracked 2.67 and the cause is bad cracking;);););)

I know i souldn't be talking about it but thats the truth;)

A cracked version of ANY CCE version is always inferior(in image quality) to the Retail one;)

Now have updated it to 2.7 but this was for Yuri's old post;);)

[hendrix]

Originally posted by kingpicus
I'm looking for Hi-End quality.
I work on DVCam source and make final DVD at max 9000Kbits/sec
which the quality best one of CCE 2.50/2.66/2.67???
on the web I have see this test:

http://sch-yuri.narod.ru/DVD/the_cce_2.htm

possible? old version have a better quality???
In the readme Custom Technology write:
"Picture quality has improved"
False !!!

Anyone have a more info and more test?

Thank's
Enrico
if you notice, the CCE test was frameserving via avisynth and doing a NTSC to PAL conversion, this can't produce an accurate test...in this test an already compressed NTSC mpeg2 source is being further compressed and converted to a PAL mpeg2 source, a digibeta, even a DVCAM source would yield higher results. i get great results with CCE 2.67.00.27.

[Yuri]

@ kingpicus

Try out NuEnc http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85269
or QuEnc http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84857
which produce astounding quality results! BTW, NuEnc and QuEnc are completely free.

I tried NuEnc and QuEnc on the "49-tricky-frames" I used for the comparison test at http://sch-yuri.narod.ru/DVD/the_cce_2.htm and was amazed at the superior quality of both NuEnc and QuEnc in comparison with CCE of any version, though the CCE family are fast.

@hendrix

the CCE test was frameserving via avisynth and doing a NTSC to PAL conversion, this can't produce an accurate test...

For all my tests I use an avi-file (Huffyuv). For the tests I was not frameserving via avisynth and doing a NTSC to PAL conversion.

Best regards!
Yuri

[hendrix]

Originally posted by Yuri
@hendrix

the CCE test was frameserving via avisynth and doing a NTSC to PAL conversion, this can't produce an accurate test...

For all my tests I use an avi-file (Huffyuv). For the tests I was not frameserving via avisynth and doing a NTSC to PAL conversion.

Best regards!
Yuri
i see the disclamer "NB: The script wasn't used during the second trial"..ok

@kingpicus...try a test yourself and trust your eyes..thats what i always do, plus each source yields different results...progressive compresses better than interlaced, high action scenes vs. low action ones.

[kingpicus]

anyone have tested the new version 2.70?

[NaN]

Something is badly wrong with your encoder test, Yuri.

The encoders get 4MBits average for the stream und produce results like this? Come on! The 2.67er result is plain impossible.

Most content encoded with cce has a even lower bitrate and cinemacraft sells their licenses to whom? Blind people with too much money?

Why should they change their engine? To make it slower on Athlons and output a worse image quality?

Be honest, you really don't believe that.

However I would like to ask you some points:

-why don't you write the full version numbers? Especially the 2.67er line went up to 2.67.00.27. You just write 2.67.

-why do you just static frames? I would suggest to compare some motion scenes, maybe available for everyone to download and see for everyone himself.

-what software did you use to compare the frames?

After all, you should give more details please. So I don't think it's representative.

Cheers, Nan

EDIT: deleted some nonsense.

[Chaddy]

The only thing i have noticed between various versions of CCE is speed not quality difference, CCE 2.50 is noticeably faster on this machine (XP 2400+) compared to CCE 2.6x/2.70.

Plus i like the gui 2.50 has :)