What encoder for which type of film

this poll is here not to try and say which encoder is best overall but which is best to use for certain types of video as some are better than other

when u vote please say which and why - i would have put same choices for all but the poll would have been far too big - so quick post about which you find at what better was easier

I find myself using HC more and more for everything.

u ever used pro encoder ? if so hat did u think of it ? have a chance at using it anw ould like to know as it would save me wasting time - i am concidering hc more and more as it is giving results on par - if not better than cce at times

I have used Procoder 1.5 and 2... both are very good but for everything I used Procoder for... HC is just as good for me.... low bitrates, Interlaced video... HC works well on everything and I think it works better with DVD-RB.

I like ProCoder 2. It's a great all-round, no tweaks, encoder that never gives a bad result. It produces a rather soft image even on higher bitrates so I also use CCE. I can often get a slightly better result with CCE on higher bitrates or with the right amount of tweaking matrices, filters and whatnot. I haven't had the chance to use HC much, but I keep hearing good things so I better get around to it soon

So far I like Quenc59ß2(HQ,Trellis, and Extreme amp; Slow) for everything I've wanted to re-encode. This is includes just 3 DVD compilations with some 60's color TV animation,Bamp;W kinescopes, and film - all NTSC re-encoded at ~1,500 to 1,800 Kbs avg (50-63%).

I made up small sample DVDs containing a variety of the material from each original and tested re-encoding with various encoders using DVDRebuilder. I've tried CCE 2.50 amp; 2.70, ProCoder2, Quenc54amp;59, and HC0.01 amp; 0.12 with a few different matrices.

CCE 2.50 5 pass gave me the next best results on all material, CCE 2.70 the worst. ProCoder2 smoothed everything out, which I don't like (if I want that all I have to do is take off my glasses). HC0.12 may have been as good as CCE 2.50 (I didn't spend anytime comparing them to each other by the time I got around to trying HC) and I couldn't tell any differences from using various matrices.

It takes ~2 to 3 days to encode a full DVD using Quenc with all those settings ticked using a P4 2.66B, but it seems worth it to me. Using Extremeamp;Slow setting gives a very slight improvement and increases encoding time by around one half to a third (don't remember exactly now).

I use CCE for most everything except animation. With animation I just use Shrink (yes I know it's not an encoder).  It seems to all be just about the same result with smoothness enabled.  Though it's no contest for everything else.

I use cce. I do want to try hc and see the results

I used to use CCE with 5 passes, but thanks to the wisdom passed on in this forum I've gone from using 3 CCE passes to now using HC for everything.

I think it does a comparable job, if not better, than CCE for my eyes.

cobo:  Try the latest HC version, it's much faster and still great!

I use the Procoder 2. Very good for low bitrates (better than CCE with 3 passes) and cartoons. I had very bad results using cce for aladdin. Procoder was much better (avg. bitrate was about 2800).
With higher bitrates I am very happy with CCE (2.67).
Never tested HC and QuEnc. Should I ???

HC encoder :
- fast enough ;
- good results ;
- FREEWARE!!!

I've been using HC for everything, and am much happier than when I was using CCE.

Too many versions of CCE with different settings for each version.  Every time they release an update, nothing works the same, it seems.

HC has handled everything I have thrown at it, and I have not even begun to play with the higher end features (matrices, etc.)

bnocturnal

HC; why? 1)free 2) as good as CCE. yes it is slower than CCE but, i  start the process just before going to bed. why spend $58, i don't get it.