hc or cce

Carpo · 31st January 2006, 23:54

now im not going to ask which is best, but what i would like to know is which would you choose - hc or cce - one being free the other being $60 - now i know that $60 may not seem like much to some ppl but if you have a young family to support and have a morgage and such would that be a factor in your choice ?

or like me unemployed atm so money is tight - thats why i use hc

Malphas · 1st February 2006, 00:03

HC. Personally, I'm happy with the results and don't find the difference between the two encoders to be significant enough to warrant the $60.

spuddog · 1st February 2006, 00:04

I use CCE

Rockas · 1st February 2006, 00:21

I've been, mostly, using CCE (2.50) - runs much faster on my AMD system, but now that I've been testing Dual Runs on my P4 HT laptop I will be using HC frequently... the speed is getting closer to CCE

m1ckran · 1st February 2006, 00:37

After trying out HC and Qenc, I use HC but I don't have CCE.

@Rockas
Your comments are interesting. They suggest that you prefer HC but use CCE because it's faster. Is that right?

Rockas · 1st February 2006, 00:55

@m1ckran
Well... I simply don't have preferences

None of them is my favourite and they both are

They have similar quality (on my eyes)... I just used to use CCE (2.50) 'cause my test computer (an old AMD XP2000+) is a lot faster with it...

I recently bought a laptop P4 3.2GHZ HT so I'll be using HC more often 'cause now I can run fast tests using it too

lantern · 1st February 2006, 01:58

I use CCE primarily because, well, I already own it. If I didn't already own it, I would use HC. Quality is pretty close.

l8nights · 1st February 2006, 05:12

hmm I use both, I'm afraid this is a can of worms here!
but I 'll bite different situations call for different encoders in my case I usually preffer hc's quality and you cannot beat free I personally would rather donate to a free prog. created by someone in the community than buy a prog that is it's equal from some corporation!

however I find my self turning to cce quite frequently for dvd's that I end up backing up numerous times such as kid's movies! or for testing/comparing machine times!
just for the speed!

m1ckran · 1st February 2006, 11:39

@Rockas & @I8nights & @lantern

Thanks for your comments. Some people can get pretty fanatical about CCE and I was wondering whether I should invest to see for myself. After all, the only foolproof way to find out is to form your own opinion. Your balanced opinions now lead me to think that I should stick with HC.

Currently, I'm perfectly happy with HC and DVD-RB and I have no qualms about donating to the authors. On a slightly different tack, does anyone know how much of a DVD-RB donation is allocated to the authors of the several component applications? If jdobbs receives the entire donation (no problem with that), I would also like to contribute to the other authors.

It's truly amazing that individuals can produce free/donationware applications that are of sufficient quality to compare with expensive commercial releases. I really do admire the many people who produce the goods for us (too many to mention here) and I hope they can continue to do so for as long as they wish.

PS "I8nights" - like that one!

SAPSTAR · 1st February 2006, 20:19

I use AutoQMatEnc

Carpo · 1st February 2006, 21:28

dont make me slap u

(hc vs autoqmatenc is next - well, who ever wins this poll is anyway)

anyway did some tests today - using as many passes as cce sp would do (i did this on purpose) now apart from the time and size of the different m2vs i found that cces output with all the extra passes are only slightly bigger - where as the pic qual was near the same, well HC output looked cleaner)

eg test.m2v - cce - 80meg
test.m2v - HC - 79.9meg

cce basic and HC gave near same results, but after doing the tests im more in favour of HC

Skunk · 2nd February 2006, 02:44

I personally have never used CCE, but I am pretty happy with HC so far. Like L8nights said, there are different situations that might call for different encoders. Sometimes I will go for a long road trip so I will bring a few backups. Then I will use ReJig because quality is not a big deal. I may just toss them later. If I am doing a CG source, or interleaved sections I use ProCoder.
So to rap it up..... lol
I like more than one encoder, but HC does the bulk of my backups. If I had CCE I might use it, but I think HC does such a good job that the value far outweighs any minor improvement CCE MIGHT be.

RIPRECOBACK · 2nd February 2006, 09:36

I'm in favour of CCE.

Simply because it delivers the best results IMO, especially since 2.7.4.2.

It has come to my notion that there are trial versions of CCESP full, that do not have a logo or time limitation.

I don't know if these are legal or illegal releases, you can't tell in any way.

I do not recommend nor advise the use of illegal versions.

But I know people using CCETSPT versions that works well, and don't put a logo or time restriction in the output, but I don't know if these are official trial releases or not. There is no way to tell the difference however.

Carpo · 2nd February 2006, 11:25

im doing a face of if you will of encoders, procoder may find its way here if some nice person buys it for me

at $699 it may not tho

Skunk · 2nd February 2006, 12:30

I was blessed with a working copy of ProCoder when I bought my new PC. The guy who I bought it from left all sorts of software on there. I had no idea procoder was so expensive, but the little usb key should have tipped me off.

RIPRECOBACK · 2nd February 2006, 14:02

Luckey you, although youre probably not entitled to use it

Well although if you have the dongle.......
and youre registration number.

Microsoft even want to pay you FOR EVERY COPY of WINDOWS !!!

So if you own 7 PC's , just start counting..........

But it is still strange to see how many people use CCETSPT.EXE.......

Probably explained by the circulation of versions that do not have restrictions or a logo in the output......

Skunk · 2nd February 2006, 14:14

I don't see why I wouldn't be entitled to use it. I see it like he just handed over his registration and software to me. They got paid for it and still only one person is using it.

I have XP on all 3 of my PCs right now and I installed them all from the same disk with the same key. I had no problems.

Anyways. As far as procoder goes, I would never pay that much for it. There are other encoders that can match it every step of the way for much less $$

rendez2k · 2nd February 2006, 14:33

Although I prefer the quality of HC on the whole, I like CCE because I can use RB-Opt!

Edit: Would love to see comparisons and opinions of HC/CCE vs autoqmatenc!

gobama05 · 2nd February 2006, 15:05

CCE for me, I have used HC before. The results were very good, but I felt that CCE's looked better. Procoder is also excellent, although on my machine it will take 4 hours on Mastering Quality. But I look for great quality, and I set it to run while I am sleeping anyway. Cheers

SAPSTAR · 2nd February 2006, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpo

dont make me slap u

(hc vs autoqmatenc is next - well, who ever wins this poll is anyway)

anyway did some tests today - using as many passes as cce sp would do (i did this on purpose) now apart from the time and size of the different m2vs i found that cces output with all the extra passes are only slightly bigger - where as the pic qual was near the same, well HC output looked cleaner)

eg test.m2v - cce - 80meg
test.m2v - HC - 79.9meg

cce basic and HC gave near same results, but after doing the tests im more in favour of HC

In fact I think you're trying to compare potatoes and pears...
HC is very good at : Interlaced material, low-medium bitrates
CCE is very good at : Progressive material, high bitrates

Each encoder has its strength and weaknesses.

So I would say, if I had to choose I would choose HC.
It's free, and usually my DVDs are rather highly compressed.

View Poll Results: Which would you use given the option
HC	30	46.15%
CCE	35	53.85%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

31st January 2006, 23:54	#1 \| Link
Carpo Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: /dev/null Posts: 1,348	hc or cce now im not going to ask which is best, but what i would like to know is which would you choose - hc or cce - one being free the other being $60 - now i know that $60 may not seem like much to some ppl but if you have a young family to support and have a morgage and such would that be a factor in your choice ? or like me unemployed atm so money is tight - thats why i use hc __________________ The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI Agents

1st February 2006, 00:04	#3 \| Link
spuddog Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: southern illinois, usa Posts: 123	I use CCE __________________ Scott M.

1st February 2006, 00:21	#4 \| Link
Rockas Ridendo Castigat Mores Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 1,509	I've been, mostly, using CCE (2.50) - runs much faster on my AMD system, but now that I've been testing Dual Runs on my P4 HT laptop I will be using HC frequently... the speed is getting closer to CCE __________________ None is as blind as those that don't listen. www.dvdrebuilder.com RME Rockas Software

1st February 2006, 00:55	#6 \| Link
Rockas Ridendo Castigat Mores Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 1,509	@m1ckran Well... I simply don't have preferences None of them is my favourite and they both are They have similar quality (on my eyes)... I just used to use CCE (2.50) 'cause my test computer (an old AMD XP2000+) is a lot faster with it... I recently bought a laptop P4 3.2GHZ HT so I'll be using HC more often 'cause now I can run fast tests using it too __________________ None is as blind as those that don't listen. www.dvdrebuilder.com RME Rockas Software

1st February 2006, 00:03	#2 \| Link
Malphas Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 60	HC. Personally, I'm happy with the results and don't find the difference between the two encoders to be significant enough to warrant the $60.

1st February 2006, 00:37	#5 \| Link
m1ckran Registered Nutter Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: True Home of Football and the Ashes Posts: 214	After trying out HC and Qenc, I use HC but I don't have CCE. @Rockas Your comments are interesting. They suggest that you prefer HC but use CCE because it's faster. Is that right?

1st February 2006, 01:58	#7 \| Link
lantern Average Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 96	I use CCE primarily because, well, I already own it. If I didn't already own it, I would use HC. Quality is pretty close.

1st February 2006, 05:12	#8 \| Link
l8nights ~Valinor~ Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: where kennedy got popped Posts: 89	hmm I use both, I'm afraid this is a can of worms here! but I 'll bite different situations call for different encoders in my case I usually preffer hc's quality and you cannot beat free I personally would rather donate to a free prog. created by someone in the community than buy a prog that is it's equal from some corporation! however I find my self turning to cce quite frequently for dvd's that I end up backing up numerous times such as kid's movies! or for testing/comparing machine times! just for the speed! __________________ donate you unused cpu clycles to find cures! The future doesn't just happen: People create it through their action -- or inaction -- today. Last edited by l8nights; 2nd February 2006 at 01:40.

1st February 2006, 11:39	#9 \| Link
m1ckran Registered Nutter Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: True Home of Football and the Ashes Posts: 214	@Rockas & @I8nights & @lantern Thanks for your comments. Some people can get pretty fanatical about CCE and I was wondering whether I should invest to see for myself. After all, the only foolproof way to find out is to form your own opinion. Your balanced opinions now lead me to think that I should stick with HC. Currently, I'm perfectly happy with HC and DVD-RB and I have no qualms about donating to the authors. On a slightly different tack, does anyone know how much of a DVD-RB donation is allocated to the authors of the several component applications? If jdobbs receives the entire donation (no problem with that), I would also like to contribute to the other authors. It's truly amazing that individuals can produce free/donationware applications that are of sufficient quality to compare with expensive commercial releases. I really do admire the many people who produce the goods for us (too many to mention here) and I hope they can continue to do so for as long as they wish. PS "I8nights" - like that one! Last edited by m1ckran; 1st February 2006 at 11:49.

1st February 2006, 20:19	#10 \| Link
SAPSTAR QMatOP/AutoQMatEnc Author Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Exiled french guy living in Canada Posts: 401	I use AutoQMatEnc __________________ --- Carpe Diem --- Quantization Matrices are like life..a mystery for me :) www.autoqmatenc.com For Donations : https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/websc...harset=UTF%2d8

1st February 2006, 21:28	#11 \| Link
Carpo Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: /dev/null Posts: 1,348	dont make me slap u (hc vs autoqmatenc is next - well, who ever wins this poll is anyway) anyway did some tests today - using as many passes as cce sp would do (i did this on purpose) now apart from the time and size of the different m2vs i found that cces output with all the extra passes are only slightly bigger - where as the pic qual was near the same, well HC output looked cleaner) eg test.m2v - cce - 80meg test.m2v - HC - 79.9meg cce basic and HC gave near same results, but after doing the tests im more in favour of HC __________________ The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI Agents Last edited by Carpo; 1st February 2006 at 21:37.

2nd February 2006, 02:44	#12 \| Link
Skunk Me Like DVD Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Nerdtown, USA Posts: 129	I personally have never used CCE, but I am pretty happy with HC so far. Like L8nights said, there are different situations that might call for different encoders. Sometimes I will go for a long road trip so I will bring a few backups. Then I will use ReJig because quality is not a big deal. I may just toss them later. If I am doing a CG source, or interleaved sections I use ProCoder. So to rap it up..... lol I like more than one encoder, but HC does the bulk of my backups. If I had CCE I might use it, but I think HC does such a good job that the value far outweighs any minor improvement CCE MIGHT be. __________________ "I am your father's son's uncle's newphew's cousin's former roommate." Dark Helmet : Spaceballs

2nd February 2006, 09:36	#13 \| Link
RIPRECOBACK newby on DOOM9 Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	I'm in favour of CCE. Simply because it delivers the best results IMO, especially since 2.7.4.2. It has come to my notion that there are trial versions of CCESP full, that do not have a logo or time limitation. I don't know if these are legal or illegal releases, you can't tell in any way. I do not recommend nor advise the use of illegal versions. But I know people using CCETSPT versions that works well, and don't put a logo or time restriction in the output, but I don't know if these are official trial releases or not. There is no way to tell the difference however.

2nd February 2006, 11:25	#14 \| Link
Carpo Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: /dev/null Posts: 1,348	im doing a face of if you will of encoders, procoder may find its way here if some nice person buys it for me at $699 it may not tho __________________ The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI Agents

2nd February 2006, 12:30	#15 \| Link
Skunk Me Like DVD Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Nerdtown, USA Posts: 129	I was blessed with a working copy of ProCoder when I bought my new PC. The guy who I bought it from left all sorts of software on there. I had no idea procoder was so expensive, but the little usb key should have tipped me off. __________________ "I am your father's son's uncle's newphew's cousin's former roommate." Dark Helmet : Spaceballs

2nd February 2006, 14:02	#16 \| Link
RIPRECOBACK newby on DOOM9 Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	Luckey you, although youre probably not entitled to use it Well although if you have the dongle....... and youre registration number. Microsoft even want to pay you FOR EVERY COPY of WINDOWS !!! So if you own 7 PC's , just start counting.......... But it is still strange to see how many people use CCETSPT.EXE....... Probably explained by the circulation of versions that do not have restrictions or a logo in the output......

2nd February 2006, 14:14	#17 \| Link
Skunk Me Like DVD Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Nerdtown, USA Posts: 129	I don't see why I wouldn't be entitled to use it. I see it like he just handed over his registration and software to me. They got paid for it and still only one person is using it. I have XP on all 3 of my PCs right now and I installed them all from the same disk with the same key. I had no problems. Anyways. As far as procoder goes, I would never pay that much for it. There are other encoders that can match it every step of the way for much less $$ __________________ "I am your father's son's uncle's newphew's cousin's former roommate." Dark Helmet : Spaceballs

2nd February 2006, 14:33	#18 \| Link
rendez2k Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 625	Although I prefer the quality of HC on the whole, I like CCE because I can use RB-Opt! Edit: Would love to see comparisons and opinions of HC/CCE vs autoqmatenc! Last edited by rendez2k; 2nd February 2006 at 14:35.

2nd February 2006, 15:05	#19 \| Link
gobama05 DVD freak Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Michigan Posts: 31	CCE for me, I have used HC before. The results were very good, but I felt that CCE's looked better. Procoder is also excellent, although on my machine it will take 4 hours on Mastering Quality. But I look for great quality, and I set it to run while I am sleeping anyway. Cheers