DVD-Rebuilder and QEnc although, getting, encode, better

andy

I've tried with both QEnc and CCE - I was getting a speed of about 1.3 with CCE during a 3 pass encode, but with QEnc I was getting abouyt 12fps (which equates to a speed of 0.5).  Is this right?  I am using the latest 0.51 with Trelis option chosen (although this does slow it down a little I know).  I still think CCE gives better results, and on this test did so in less time too.  Any thoughts?

QEnc is free.
You have to pay for CCE.
Waht's the best quality/cost ratio and the best speed/cost ratio?

Originally posted by sidders
I've tried with both QEnc and CCE - I was getting a speed of about 1.3 with CCE during a 3 pass encode, but with QEnc I was getting abouyt 12fps (which equates to a speed of 0.5).  Is this right?  I am using the latest 0.51 with Trelis option chosen (although this does slow it down a little I know).  I still think CCE gives better results, and on this test did so in less time too.  Any thoughts?

@sidders:
i had 10 - 12 fps as well when trellis was CHECKED!  trellis does NOT slow down encoding quot;a little!quot;  it's slowing down the encoding process by about FIFTY percent!!!   since i unchecked it, i got back around 24-25 fps!  check this thread where i posted:

thread

but i agree with you that cce is indeed faster.  i get about 2.3 - 2.7x realtime encoding with it.

addenum:  look also here (posted by wmansir) under quot;quenc options.quot;

@robot1:
quot;bestquot; quality/cost ratio?  quot;bestquot; speed/cost ratio?  sounds like one of those quot;what's bestquot; questions again

IMHO, i actually BOUGHT CCE basic b/c the results of the cce trial version was so CONVINCING to me that i invested 58 bucks to get cce basic which uses the same engine as cce sp (with less options to tweak, though)!  quenc is not bad at all, but cce produces a much finer grain and less blocky artefacts especially in action scenes or transitions.  but that's just my opinion...

DD



I still think CCE gives better results, and on this test did so in less time too. Any thoughts?

i actually BOUGHT CCE basic b/c the results of the cce trial version was so CONVINCING to me that i invested 58 bucks to get cce basic which uses the same engine as cce sp (with less options to tweak, though)! quenc is not bad at all, but cce produces a much finer grain and less blocky artefacts especially in action scenes or transitions. but that's just my opinion...

and my opinion is that comparing a free program to a commercial one can be of interest of course. one should always remember that not everyone WANTS to have to buy another program though and the free alternative can give comparable and very good result. and for that we should all be thankfull.  

Come on guys, what I think he ment was that QuEnc is real good and its free... its not CCE Basic or SP but its real close and its the best free alternative for Mpeg encoding and remember its still only ver. .51 so its just gonna get better

I wasn't dissing QEnc - I just wondered if i was doing something wrong.  It gives the best quality from a freeware program that I've seen so far.  Nic is an absolute genius!

Quenc is slightly fatser than CCE on my system.  I get an average of 25 -30 FPS out of it.

Do u have Trelis option checked?

Originally posted by dragongodz
and my opinion is that comparing a free program to a commercial one can be of interest of course. one should always remember that not everyone WANTS to have to buy another program though and the free alternative can give comparable and very good result. and for that we should all be thankfull.   

that's correct, but in this case the question was about the comparison between quenc and cce -- and that's what i was addressing in a very dry and factful manner, so no bashing was intended (or even done).  considering that quenc is free, it is just amazing and indeed an absolute hammer!   but for those ppl who can invest a few bucks to get THE quality, cce is worth it.

Quenc is slightly fatser than CCE on my system. I get an average of 25 -30 FPS out of it.

that's interesting b/c 25-30 fps translates to about 1-1.2x realtime (and i'm sure you didn't turn on trellis -- unless you have 5 ghz p4 ).  i constantly get over 2x realtime encoding with cce.  maybe you used some fancy parameters in cce .

DD

I just started Kill Bill with Quenc and I am getting 26-28 FPS.  This is using 2 pass and no other settings are switched on.

My system isn't anything fancy (Athlon XP 2000, 512MB RAM).

Originally posted by robot1
QEnc is free.
You have to pay for CCE.
Waht's the best quality/cost ratio and the best speed/cost ratio?

*Error* - Division by zero. Universe will now collapse.

Thanks a lot NIC

in this case the question was about the comparison between quenc and cce -- and that's what i was addressing in a very dry and factful manner, so no bashing was intended (or even done)

yes understood but what i meant was that the fact that QuEnc is a free program IS a factor. if people ask quot;why isnt this free program as good as this commercial program ?quot; the first thing they need to be reminded of is that it IS FREE.

a company can hire more programmers and effectivly throw cash at a program where freeware cant so expectations need to be realistic. thats not to say a free program can not be better than a commercial one because they can but the expectation or disapointment if its not is wrong thinking.