Let jdobbs know what is your favorite encoder (and why) !!! [Archive]

Matt Edd

14th April 2005, 00:43

I'm new to this program but I am trying to decide what encoder to use. I would like to know WHY everyone uses the one that they use and why they do NOT use the others. Also, I would like to know about quality... I know CCE is the best but is QuEnc really that bad? I'm running tests myself right now but I would like to know what other people think. I'm sure every has answered this question already.

dragongodz

14th April 2005, 13:15

is QuEnc really that bad?
no not at all. Fishman0919 is in the middle of an encoder blind test similar to this one he did
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91418
but as i said just with different encoders.
so that should be an interesting read.

I'm running tests myself
always the best idea in the end. only you can say what looks best for you. :)

EDIT:
i just remembered a couple of tests that were done if you want to have a look
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=91405
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=89559

Matt Edd

14th April 2005, 14:36

Thanks... I just finished encoding the Two Towers (whole DVD) with QuEnc and I don't notice a thing on my 27" TV. I guess since I mainly encode TV DVDs i won't care too much if there is a little loss in quality.

Thanks again.

TuRiSOft

14th April 2005, 20:56

CCE-SP 2.50 is getting high , isn't it?
I thought very little people still using it!
I remember the very first days of DVD-RB. There was a -blanked- option to use FFMpegEnc in it.
It disappeared before we can try it!

archaeo

14th April 2005, 23:10

wow, version .14... there's one for the archives. anyone have a screenshot of v.01? we could submit it to the smithsonian :D

Rockas

14th April 2005, 23:17

No... sorry... the first Public release was 0.14 :D

dragongodz

16th April 2005, 01:33

only 67 votes ? why is it people will post "theres a bug" til the cows come home but not spend 5 seconds on other things ?

Fishman0919

16th April 2005, 01:53

Bump, vote

onesoul

16th April 2005, 02:03

Originally posted by dragongodz
only 67 votes ? why is it people will post "theres a bug" til the cows come home but not spend 5 seconds on other things ? I guess we should have a poll of the buggiest encoder. :D

TuRiSOft

16th April 2005, 08:00

Bumped to let vote:D !!!

robot1

16th April 2005, 15:25

Interesting.

MarioGarcia

16th April 2005, 16:29

what about tmpenc? will ever be support for this encoder? I used for a long, long time for vcd and svcd and never let me down, never failed, it would be nice if it was available; I read somewhere that it could be supported in the future.. Or did I dream it?

lamster

16th April 2005, 16:37

Originally posted by dragongodz
only 67 votes ? why is it people will post "theres a bug" til the cows come home but not spend 5 seconds on other things ?
Well, maybe some people don't have a preference?

I've always used QuEnc, but recently I've been trying HC. I don't have a strong preference one way or another. (But, to make you happy, I just voted for QuEnc, since that's the one I've used the most. :p )

Fishman0919

16th April 2005, 16:40

I have always wanted to see TMPGEnc support in DVD-RB, to have another "not costing too much" encoder like CCE Basic but w/ QuEnc and HC Encoder Quality so good... is there really any need. Maybe for all the people who have TMPGEnc it would be nice to be able to use it with such a great program.

TuRiSOft

16th April 2005, 17:07

Originally posted by Fishman0919
I have always wanted to see TMPGEnc support in DVD-RB, to have another "not costing too much" encoder like CCE Basic but w/ QuEnc and HC Encoder Quality so good... is there really any need. Maybe for all the people who have TMPGEnc it would be nice to be able to use it with such a great program.

So am I!

robot1

16th April 2005, 17:56

I voted for ProCoder (the encoder I've always used) because I like it's quality, especially for interlaced or low bitrate.
Anyway I must admit that HC and QuEnc are great, and also CCE Basic is a good choice for its cost.

pg55555

16th April 2005, 18:05

TuRiSOft
I found your posting of "invitations" to participate in this poll in several other threads "unpolite", to say the less.
:angry:

Rockas

16th April 2005, 20:05

Well... I also use TMPGEnc... sometimes... to get me off some troubles :D

But it is so slow :(
Even if Rebuilder support is I'll never use it.

Kika

16th April 2005, 22:41

I not longer use any other Encoder than TMPGEnc 2.5x.

I've testet all the others, but i'm back to TMPGEnc - no problems, no trouble. Fast enough for me (6 hours for Lord of the Rings on a P4 1.9).

So if a tool can't be used with TMPGEnc, i don't use the tool. :devil:

captain_video

17th April 2005, 02:14

I've tried various versions of CCE Basic and SP as well as Procoder 2.0. I liked Procoder the best but it took way too long to process a movie (up to 16 hours or more). I had problems with some of the CCE versions but later found it was most likely to the DVD media I was using at the time. I'm currently using CCE Basic 2.69.01 and am quite pleased with the results.

Cwluc

17th April 2005, 04:14

CCE was the original draw to this program, I have been around to see other encoders supported but I hold on knowing (hoping and praying?) that CCE will continually be supported. Personally I find it the best overall encoder.

Now that said, if there was ever a reason to re-encode the sound (if anyone remembers the horrible days before even flaskMPEG and the terrible sound quality that comes of CCE) I will switch to something else faster than you can say I.

Morte66

17th April 2005, 12:03

FreeEnc (not in poll). A QuEnc compatible, also based on libavcodec. It's pretty much the same results as QuEnc, but it's slightly quicker and multitasks better and is generally a bit easier to live with if you have a modest PC (like my XP1900+). It doesn't seem to work with the latest DVD-RB which issues some command line switches it doesn't recognise, so I have a separate RB 0.59 install to use it.

Also I sort of reserved HC in best profile for "special occasions", whatever they may be, since it takes about 24 hours.

Rockas

17th April 2005, 14:06

@Morte66
24Hours!?!?!?! On an Athlon XP1900+ ?!?!?!

Sorry to inform you but... there must be something wrong!!!

I think you really must Defrag your HDD and take a look on the precesses that are running on your PC

I make my tests on a XP2000+ and I never had an encoding that took more than 6 hours.

24Hours!?!?!?
I can be wrong... can anyone else confirm this?

archaeo

17th April 2005, 14:39

16 hours. This was on a dual processor PIII (xeon) 1Ghz. HC doesn't utilize multithread, so it was running off only 1 cpu. CCE only takes me a couple of hours for an OPV project. I'm looking forward to trying the new HC version (v13), and seeing if jdobbs may develop support for multi-threading in the future.

Rockas

17th April 2005, 17:54

"PIII (xeon) 1Ghz" = 16 hours

That makes my point :) A PIII isn't exactly an Athlon XP 1900+, is it? (You say it is a dual processor but if the work is done using just one...).

Matt Edd

17th April 2005, 19:30

He did say "in best profile" if that makes a difference. I am using HC for the first time and it is on normal profile. It's only 1/5 of the way done and it's been about 2 hours so an estimate of 10 hours total with 1.47 GHz and 1.5 GB of RAM. That's about what I would get out of QuEnc on its normal settings.

Of course that depends on the anount of compression but does that seem too slow?

m3taPT

17th April 2005, 22:46

Dual Xeon 2.4, on "best" setting, HC takes 14 hours. (yes because it doesn't multithread as it should).

With the abovementioned hardware, taking 14 hours is like going back in time to stoneage... or Windows 3.0 (basically the same thing, heh).
And honestly... if i have a dual HT 2.4 and HC can't use it fully, then HC is (obviously) not an option.

To everyone who still doesn't know.. yes, HC is SLOW and hyperthread-disabled.

I mentioned this on another thread. By your surprise, i assume you didn't read it, Rockas.

Rumbah

17th April 2005, 23:29

I usually used CCE for Rebuilder, but now I tried HC and have to admit that I like it much better for lower bitrates, although it is slower.

But it would be quite easy in this special case to get every encoder "multithreaded". Because of the encoding divided into small pieces, DVD Recoder could start two encoding processes at once. So both cpus could get something to do.

DD51

18th April 2005, 00:09

My personal preference is HC...BUT...the fact that it's extremely slow commpared to CCE SP, then my first pick is CCE SP.
If HC gets to CCE SP speed then it's an easy switch for me.

hank315

18th April 2005, 00:21

Dual Xeon 2.4, on "best" setting, HC takes 14 hours. (yes because it doesn't multithread as it should).

With the abovementioned hardware, taking 14 hours is like going back in time to stoneage... or Windows 3.0 (basically the same thing, heh).Strange, don't have such fancy hardware, only a "simple" P4 3.2 GHz which encodes a 2 hour movie in 3 hours using DVD-RB and HC013.
Seems your hardware is stoneage regarding speed...

Fishman0919

18th April 2005, 00:27

I get about 2 1/2 hours with DVD-RB and HC .13 w/an AMD 64 3800+

dragongodz

18th April 2005, 02:09

yes because it doesn't multithread as it should
hyperthread-disabled
god reading these sorts of comments can really piss me off. so i am going to rant a little.

first, its NOT hyperthread-disabled, it simply doesnt support mutli-cpu or pseudo multi-cpu(HT) at the moment. its NOT something you magically disable but infact extra code you have to write. yes more work which also needs to be tested and tested and tested another dozen times to see where you are going to get real gains out of threading.

second, as it should ? why, because some people have a dual cpu or HT system ? its bloody version 0.13 and you want it to be doing everything CCE etc can do. i mean ye its not like CCE has been out for how many years and has the backing of a company and multiple programmers etc etc etc. shit hank315 should be able to catch up with that in no time right.

tell ya what, all you who think writing any of these programs(DVD-RB, HC, QuEnc etc) is easy and should do everything you want RIGHT BLOODY NOW go ahead and write your own. if you cant then be polite and suggest that feature A would be nice, not bitch and moan because they dont do what you want yet. and again definatly DONT say you think something would be easy unless you can do it yourself because if you cant you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about.

that feels better. :devil:

FarCry

18th April 2005, 02:22

i am doing around 2 1/4 hours for CCE encoding 2 passes on athlon XP 2400+. i havent used HC yet

TuRiSOft

18th April 2005, 13:51

Originally posted by pg55555
TuRiSOft
I found your posting of "invitations" to participate in this poll in several other threads "unpolite", to say the less.
:angry:

Beg your pardon!!!! I was also redarguished by a moderator! Please forgive me!!!!

JohnG

18th April 2005, 14:04

CCE (2.5 or Basic 2.7) for bitrates >2500
HC for bitrates <2500
FreeEnc for very low bitrates (movie only, re-authored for 3 or 4 movies on one DVD) Excellent quality and SUPER fast.

Rumbah

18th April 2005, 15:30

Originally posted by dragongodz
tell ya what, all you who think writing any of these programs(DVD-RB, HC, QuEnc etc) is easy and should do everything you want RIGHT BLOODY NOW go ahead and write your own.

Sorry if my post was misunderstandable. Yes, I know how to write programs and I know it is not easy. What I wanted to say is that it is easier to call two encoder processes than to change a single thread program to a dual- or multithread program.

dragongodz

18th April 2005, 17:00

Rumbah - no i understood what you were saying. you will notice i was not quoting you. sorry if you mistook my post as being in reply to yours.

Carpo

18th April 2005, 17:58

im testing out HC and have to say that the result of the dvd i did with it looks just like if not better in some areas than with the same dvd done with cce :)

lamster

18th April 2005, 18:19

Originally posted by Rumbah
it would be quite easy in this special case to get every encoder "multithreaded". Because of the encoding divided into small pieces, DVD Recoder could start two encoding processes at once. So both cpus could get something to do.
I agree, it would be a nice addition to Rebuilder if you could configure how many concurrent encoder processes it should spin off. (It might be desirable to be able to configure it on a per-encoder basis, so Rebuilder would automatically use the desired setting when switching between encoders.)

dannyv

18th April 2005, 19:04

CCE 2.67 does the best with interlaced materal. CCE for all other projects has the best results.

Morte66

18th April 2005, 19:23

Originally posted by Rockas
@Morte66
24Hours!?!?!?! On an Athlon XP1900+ ?!?!?!

Sorry to inform you but... there must be something wrong!!!

I think you really must Defrag your HDD and take a look on the precesses that are running on your PC

I make my tests on a XP2000+ and I never had an encoding that took more than 6 hours.

24Hours!?!?!?
I can be wrong... can anyone else confirm this?

Best profile, QLB matrix, processing about 7.8GB of 4:3 material, using the PC at the same time for web surfing and general document work and also viewing a couple of ripped films in Zoom Player (which uses about 40% of my CPU). [This is how I actually use DVD-RB. It would run maybe 25-40% faster given a machine to itself, but I rarely do that...]

From experience, I would expect QuEnc in two pass high quality mode with trellis enabled to take over 20 hours in the same circumstances. But QuEnc only takes about 7 hours in standard quality 2 pass no trellis when it has the PC to itself, which is about the same as FreeEnc. Settings and circumstances are everything....

[The reason I like FreeEnc is that it doesn't interfere with other apps, you wouldn't know there was an encoder running. HC and QuEnc make my web browser etc feel a bit sluggish.]

XP1900+ (1.6GHz) with 512MB of PC2100 RAM, and a pair of hard drives. My HD is regularly defragged, my PC is cleaned and tuned according to the advice >here< (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html). It occasionally outperforms a friend's Athlon 2800+, especially when the second drive becomes relevant.

@hank315 sayeth:
Seems your hardware is stoneage regarding speed...Yep, all of 2 years old. ;) BTW, thanks for the timings folks -- I've been wondering what effect a mobo/CPU upgrade to say a 3500+ would have.

Matt Edd

19th April 2005, 01:50

I never used HC before this thread but with it getting the most votes (for free encoders) I decided to try it. (That and the latest version said it was faster.) I have to say that I like it better than QuEnc now.

TuRiSOft

22nd April 2005, 20:28

;)

powerslave

22nd April 2005, 22:37

HC is getting faster and looks awesome!

TuRiSOft

23rd April 2005, 07:56

Originally posted by powerslave
HC is getting faster and looks awesome!

I agree!!!:)

archaeo

23rd April 2005, 21:25

Rumbah wrote:

it would be quite easy in this special case to get every encoder "multithreaded". Because of the encoding divided into small pieces, DVD Recoder could start two encoding processes at once. So both cpus could get something to do.

yes it would be a great feature -
jdobbs has expressed an interest in working this into RB :)

TuRiSOft

26th April 2005, 13:28

This is the last BUMP! After it we will consider results!

Balthazar

26th April 2005, 23:06

I have been using CCE Basic for a year now, but having tried HC I am willing to switch. HC is incredible. As far as encode times go, I don't see a problem. I did 3 hours of video in 2 hours with HC. Only about 20 minutes faster with CCE, but HC looks better IMHO. Keep up the good work Hank315! :)

TuRiSOft

27th April 2005, 18:02

Originally posted by Balthazar
I have been using CCE Basic for a year now, but having tried HC I am willing to switch. HC is incredible. As far as encode times go, I don't see a problem. I did 3 hours of video in 2 hours with HC. Only about 20 minutes faster with CCE, but HC looks better IMHO. Keep up the good work Hank315! :)

Yes , it is really good promising!

codefish

27th April 2005, 18:32

I use CCE2.50 because it works with all my Software and because I haven't tested anything else except TMPG which needs 30% more Filesize (and of couse a lot more coding time) to achieve comparable Results. I have an Athlon XP, so speedwise there's nothing comparable to CCE2.50 :)

By the way, TMPG can be really useful to handle (MUX/DEMUX/SPLIT etc.) mpeg2-Files so it still has it's importand place on my harddisk.

"newbie"-greets

Codefish

elizerrojas

27th April 2005, 18:43

GitsLM

27th April 2005, 21:02

simple cce 2.5 because i had so manyissues with all other encoders and this one just works fine. not the best quality but no issues whatsoever :D

rufusrex

27th April 2005, 23:31

Is there a big difference on the quality/speed settings with HC? Is the longer encode time justified?

jdobbs

28th April 2005, 00:45

Originally posted by codefish
I use CCE2.50 because it works with all my Software and because I haven't tested anything else except TMPG which needs 30% more Filesize (and of couse a lot more coding time) to achieve comparable Results. I have an Athlon XP, so speedwise there's nothing comparable to CCE2.50 :)

By the way, TMPG can be really useful to handle (MUX/DEMUX/SPLIT etc.) mpeg2-Files so it still has it's importand place on my harddisk.

"newbie"-greets

Codefish It's interesting isn't it? I also have an Athlon 3200+ and v2.50 is significantly faster than any of the newer versions. I love my CCE v2.50, and it doesn't choke on certain materials like v2.70 does.

ookzDVD

28th April 2005, 09:11

I use the CCE SP 2.67 SP & ECL, it works with DVD2SVCD and DVD-RB!
Ciao!

It's FAST and Fr** :)

onesoul

28th April 2005, 16:14

Originally posted by jdobbs
I love my CCE v2.50, and it doesn't choke on certain materials like v2.70 does. Could you please try again a multipass cce 2.70 on the same material where it would choke before with bias=40?

nwg

28th April 2005, 16:33

I use CCE 2.50 most of the but, I also use Quenc occasionally.

richarddd

29th April 2005, 12:29

Originally posted by powerslave
HC is getting faster and looks awesome! From the posts in this thread the consensus seems to be that HC 0.14 quality is at least as good as CCE, but that CCE is faster. Is that right?

Fishman0919

29th April 2005, 12:56

From the posts in this thread the consensus seems to be that HC 0.14 quality is at least as good as CCE, but that CCE is faster. Is that right?

Yes, HC can be as good as CCE

Yes, CCE is faster then HC... for me HC runs at about 2x's (avg 45 fps) and CCE SP 2.70 runs at about 3.9x's (about 93 fps)

TuRiSOft

29th April 2005, 14:28

Originally posted by Fishman0919
Yes, CCE is faster then HC... for me HC runs at about 2x's (avg 45 fps) and CCE SP 2.70 runs at about 3.9x's (about 93 fps)

WOW!!!
Can I ask you what kind of HW do you run?

Fishman0919

29th April 2005, 14:32

yes, an AMD 64 3800+... little OC to about 4000+

TuRiSOft

29th April 2005, 14:44

Originally posted by Fishman0919
yes, an AMD 64 3800+... little OC to about 4000+

oh, I see. I run on an Athlon XP-M 2500@3300 (2405Mhz) and got 30fps avg w/HC and about 2x w/CCE 2.70.01.05 on passes other than 1st!

richarddd

29th April 2005, 15:02

Originally posted by Fishman0919
Yes, HC can be as good as CCE There's a significant difference between "HC can be as good as CCE" (in other words, HC is sometimes equal, sometimes worse) and "HC is at least as good as CCE" (in other words, HC is no worse and sometimes better). Sorry if I'm parsing words too closely, but which of these do you think is right?

Fishman0919

29th April 2005, 15:15

Sorry, yes HC is at least as good as CCE (in other words, HC is sometimes worse and sometimes better).

richarddd

29th April 2005, 15:40

Originally posted by Fishman0919
Sorry, yes HC is at least as good as CCE (in other words, HC is sometimes worse and sometimes better). Is that others' experience? Now all we have to do is figure out a general rule for when to choose HC and when to choose CCE.

Fishman0919

29th April 2005, 17:00

Well, CCE SP 2.70.02 is $1,950.00, CCE Basic 2.70.01.02 is $58.00 and HC .14b is free... Free is the best deal just about all the time if it performs just about the same is as a $2000 encoder.

artoor

29th April 2005, 17:02

Usually I use CCE SP 2.67...
Reason: hmmm... probably out of habit
I would like to use CCE 2.70 but... I don't like its popping up :(

Take advantage of this thread I would like to ask You (users of CCE 2.70) about something. Isn't it (the popping up window) annoying for You?? Maybe You have any idea how to minimize CCE encoding window on task bar or something else so that the window will not be active. Many times I broke encoding process by chance using space key on the keyboard :(

Sorry about a bit offtopic comment but I'm rather desperating impossibility of make use of CCE 2.70 safely :(

TuRiSOft

1st May 2005, 17:42

Yep, this poll is not so interesting to YOU all , I think!!!

Malphas

2nd May 2005, 13:38

I use QuEnc although I might switch to HC as it develops and improves.

Malphas

3rd July 2005, 18:54

I use HC now.

Raziel6969

3rd July 2005, 20:02

I Use CCE 2.70.02.00
Because i'm aware of the quality and speed! :)

I didn't try others encoders, then i just the habit?
Maybe near future i'm gonna make some test, to choose ;)

Bye

raquete

3rd July 2005, 23:32

my favorite encoder is CCE 266 SP with EclCCE
why? because i can't buy a new version and CCE simulate real life to jdobbs front end (or any other front end)

apfraats

4th July 2005, 12:11

I presume the 61 voters have all spend $2000 for it.......

Ugh.....

:readrule:

Fishman0919

4th July 2005, 16:20

I presume the 61 voters have all spend $2000 for it.......

Ugh.....

:readrule:

Why, I don't minded the Cinema Craft Logo at the bottom I get with the Trial ver. :stupid:

k2002rahmani

4th July 2005, 17:46

Someone mentioned the windows popping up on CCE SP 2.7. I would also like to know how to get rid of the windows popping up, if possible. Like to run minimized....

Fishman0919

4th July 2005, 17:50

Someone mentioned the windows popping up on CCE SP 2.7. I would also like to know how to get rid of the windows popping up, if possible. Like to run minimized....

Sorry, that is minimized for CCE SP 2.70... the small window will stay but the bigger one will go.

k2002rahmani

4th July 2005, 18:13

That's what I thought. Oh well. It wouldnt be annoying if it didnt continually occur while I work.....

evestorm

4th July 2005, 18:52

I use CCE SP 2.50 and always have. Is there any real advantage to using a newer version of CCE? Speed? Quality?

k2002rahmani

4th July 2005, 19:08

They say both speed and quality are better.

buzzqw

4th July 2005, 19:13

speed for amd not for pentium

BHH

jdobbs

4th July 2005, 19:28

On my system (AMD 3200+) v2.50 is about 25% faster than v2.70. While I don't have one, I have heard reports that on Pentium processors v2.70 is faster.

On most sources I think v2.50 works just as well as the newest version. It is possible that v2.70 works a little better on interlaced sources -- while I'm not sure I could testify to that -- several experienced users have reported it so I have a tendency to believe it.