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

[TuRiSOft]

This is only to know what we are using!

[TuRiSOft]

I personally prefer SP 2.70.01.05!

[TuRiSOft]

Bump!:sly:

[dragongodz]

well i wouldnt be surprised if QuEnc doesnt have huge numbers because of the undersizing problem with the last few versions. since 0.59 beta 4 should have fixed that somewhat then hopefully people will be encouraged to give it another go. :D

[Matt Edd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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 ?

[Fishman0919]

Bump, vote

[onesoul]

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]

Bumped to let vote:D !!!

[robot1]

Interesting.

[MarioGarcia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Rockas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[dragongodz]

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]

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

[TuRiSOft]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Morte66]

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]

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]

;)

[powerslave]

HC is getting faster and looks awesome!

[TuRiSOft]

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

I agree!!!:)

[archaeo]

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 :)