quality dif between cce2.5 and 267 or higher

[radar]

hello everyone,


i was wondering if there is a quality difference between cce 2.5 and 267 or higher? are they all using the same encoder. :)

[jdobbs]

My experience has been that I can't tell the difference between the output of 2.50 and any of the newer versions. There are some new features available (like changing matrices), though, and newer versions support command line interfacing while 2.50 does not.

The biggest benefit of 2.50 is its speed. None of the newer versions are as fast. I generally see about 15% faster throughput on 2.50 than, say, 2.67...

[radar]

hi jdobbs

thanks for your reply.

[jdobbs]

:cool:

[Boulder]

The encoding speed depends on the CPU. 2.67 is faster than 2.5 on my P4, on my older Athlon 2.5 was faster. I guess they came up with some SSE2 optimizations at some point.

[jdobbs]

Makes sense. I'm using an Athlon 3200+

[Cwluc]

Just to add my 2 cents, I know that 2.50 is a slower on my P4's than 2.67 I found that even with less RAM the newer version is more capable of an encoder out of box. Now as far as compatibly is concern, 2.50 is hands down the easiest to use across the board for everything. I have never been able to visually see a difference in quality in the two versions I have. But I do know that they do offer some nicer options to increase the quality in the later releases. Also of note, here I ask the question. What was the point of SSE3 since it gets you no where. It's not really faster, and it doesn't help your encodes at all (CCE doesn't utilize it), what was the point?

[TheSeeker]

isnt an athlon 3200+ compatible with SSE2 optimization. I know my athlon64 is.

[wmansir]

Originally posted by TheSeeker
isnt an athlon 3200+ compatible with SSE2 optimization. I know my athlon64 is.
Only the Athlon64 have SSE2. The AthlonXP has SSE. The original Athlon had neither.


It's also possible AMD's SSE2 ops are not as fast as Intel's. I haven't seen any comparisons myself. or perhaps the ops them self take the same time, but the P4's architecture benefits more from their usage.

[Boulder]

AMD's SSE2 is not as fast as Intel's. This is most likely due to the architecture itself; number of registers etc.

[jdobbs]

Yeah... but it does everything else better.

Of course that will get its share of disagreements.
:scared:

[Blackout]

with a progressive, 16x9 movie , you probably wont see a difference with 2.5 ver 2.67.

but with an INTERLACED 4x3 SOURCE like a TV show or music DVD, you will see a massive difference....2.66 upwards is far advanced in the picture quality. Its less grainy, less jittery, less blocky..etc. Believe me, i am not "that" fussy when it comes to picture quality, but i and my friends can see a major difference when its an interlaced source. Its where the CCE programmers have spent most of their time improving since 2.5....

blackout

[jdobbs]

Interesting. I do mainly movies. I think I may take a look at some interlaced 4:3 sources and see if I can tell a difference.

[dannyv]

Intresting reading here.

I use cce 2.50 but I also have 2.66 I never installed it because I've herd that it is problematic and suffers from memory leaks. Can anyone confirm this and can anyone tell me if 2.66 is better on interlaced meteral. I would be very intrested to find out because I have a lot of interlaced tv series materal I need to do.

[jdobbs]

It's been a while, but as I recall 2.66 worked well... but I think there might have been some problems with the automatic pulldown (not positive, though, I'm working strictly from memory on this...) I never use the pulldown so it wouldn't have affected me much.

[Added] I just went through the change logs. No mention of a memory leak being fixed after 2.66 (of course that doesn't guarantee it wasn't).

[dannyv]

Originally posted by jdobbs
It's been a while, but as I recall 2.66 worked well... but I think there might have been some problems with the automatic pulldown (not positive, though, I'm working strictly from memory on this...) I never use the pulldown so it wouldn't have affected me much.

[Added] I just went through the change logs. No mention of a memory leak being fixed after 2.66 (of course that doesn't guarantee it wasn't).

Thanks Jdobbs

I just installed it and am ready to give it a try. I'll report back.

[Fishman0919]

For what it's worth...

I just did C.S.I. Crime Scene Investigation seasons 1-4. I started off with CCE SP 2.50 and after the finishing the first season I got bored and I changed to CCE SP 2.67. Well after doing the first disc of the second season with 2.67 I played it to see how it looked. Well after watching for a few minutes I started noticing something...it looked better.. well to my eyes it did. Thinking it might be better quality in season 2 I went back and redid disc 1 of season 1 with CCE SP 2.67 and well it looked better to my eyes.

I have never really been able to see a real quality diff. between 2.50 and 2.66/7 with DVD movies, one time 2.50 looks better and another 2.66/7 looks better. So being that 2.50 is faster for me on my PC I use it. I have never been disappointed with the results from CCE SP 2.50 but on interlaced DVD's, CCE SP 2.66/7 to me does look better.

Edit - spelling

[jdobbs]

Has anyone compared the output of CCE Basic? v2.69 is an exceptionally solid build -- and I'd bet the improvements are there as well.

[Fishman0919]

:D ... Just started. I'm doing Season 1 Disc 1 with basic 2.69.01.10 to compare the three.
Let you know the results in the morning.

[Boulder]

Originally posted by dannyv
Intresting reading here.

I use cce 2.50 but I also have 2.66 I never installed it because I've herd that it is problematic and suffers from memory leaks. Can anyone confirm this and can anyone tell me if 2.66 is better on interlaced meteral. I would be very intrested to find out because I have a lot of interlaced tv series materal I need to do.

Here's what RB said about 2.67.00.27:


CCE-SP 2.67.00.27 finally fixes the infamous memory leaks with AVISynth scripts. No more memory leaks when repeatedly opening file settings dialog (chapter setting), no more memory leaks during multipass encoding. No AddAudio() tricks necessary anymore.

[Fishman0919]

Well I just finished looking at some of CSI Season 1 Disc 1 after redoing it with CCE Basic 2.69 and it looks real, real good... the same as CCE SP 2.67 and both to me are better than CCE SP 2.50 on this.

[jdobbs]

Originally posted by Fishman0919
Well I just finished looking at some of CSI Season 1 Disc 1 after redoing it with CCE Basic 2.69 and it looks real, real good... the same as CCE SP 2.67 and both to me are better than CCE SP 2.50 on this. Thanks. That's what I was hoping. Good news.

[f@chance]

Does anyone know what happened to Bach? I remember in the DVD2SVCD forum there were a lot of quotations from him and he seemed to know CCE inside out.

F@Chance

[Boulder]

There's a thread about it in the General discussion forum I think. He got pissed off by something and decided to delete most (if not all) of his posts.

He has been around from time to time though.

[Blackout]

i agree Fishman..this is the same difference i and most others have seen....2.66 (or 2.67) is much better for interlaced material than 2.50, and CSI which is a TV show like that (all TV programs are interlaced) would be a perfect test subject....

[KeyserSoze]

2.67 is much better than 2.50 in progressive material too ;)

[jdobbs]

Well... I've done a lot of comparisons there -- and I don't see it.

[k-c-ksum]

how does it fare with procoder2? that is a top notch interlaced material encoder.

[jdobbs]

I haven't done enough testing of ProCoder to do a decent comparison. Others have sworn by its abilities with interlaced materials, though.

[KeyserSoze]

Procoder 1.5 has better IQ than Procoder 2.0(too blurry) but slower........ and better than CCE in Interlaced source ofcourse!!!