Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here.

have you tried just encoding the extra's as this movie is close to your desired size anyway's

of course you could probably just remove some extra's or audio and get it down to size

if neither of these are desired options you may throw another pass in there or try a differnt encoder.

 

Somebody gave you bad advice. That targetsectors value is no good... throw it away or you are going to be very disappointed that none of your encodes will fit...

You just happened to be lucky on this one. The source of your problem is one of two things:

1. CCE is based upon Q (for quality). When it reaches a bitrate that will result in a "perfect" Q it won't add any more bitrate. This is the most likely cause.

2. DVD-RB does not allow the reencoded bitrate to exceed the original. That would imply you could make a copy that is better than the original -- which is, of course, impossible.

In either of these cases -- adding additional bitrate and making it larger will not improve the quality of the picture -- so there really isn't a "problem".

Is anything being removed (audio or subpictures)?

 

PikaPuff

Could you provide a little info about your system, for instance, is it overclocked?

 

@brobear - Thanks for the quick reply!

@jdobbs - Thanks for a great peice of software. I will be donating very soon so that I can get the PRO version and updates. You do great things.

Being the maker of the software, which encoder do you prefer? QuEnc, Pro Coder 2, HC, CCE? Want your opinion as you have a unique perspective.

 

While you're waiting, I'll just put in that CCE is my favorite of the encoders, high quality and quicker than the others. RB isn't meant for speed though, but CCE is still the best for overall quality in my opinion. With some dual core systems, some of the encoders like the HC and ProCoder may be faster than CCE. But for the single core processors, CCE is faster and in some people's opinion the best. Pro Coder is said by some to be better with interlaced video. I haven't seen it. All the CCE encodes I've done have turned out excellent.

 

brobear


CCE is faster than any of the other encoders with dual core bar none. HC has gotten considerably faster since jdobbs added support for dual encoding (available only with RB Pro) but it's still not as fast as CCE. For those who are interested in making the leap to RB Pro, HC encoder is a great way to start for free until you've decided which encoder you want to go with.

 

I bow to both Sophocles and brobear and agree with them. I think the quality of both encoder is exceptional but prefer CCE for speed, but HC has improved and is free. It all comes down to personal choice and your pocketbook.

 

I personally use CCE for most jobs. It gives the highest quality (along with HC) of any encoder on the market and is by far the fastest. I consider the Basic version to be one of the best $58 I've ever spent. When you're doing 3-4 jobs each night like I am (testing, testing, testing) you really appreciate the speed.

I gotta say, though, that if encoding speed isn't important to you, HC costs nothing and has quality pretty much equal to CCE.

 

All you guys then pretty much agree. CCE it is then.

I think I will do a job with HC, and then the same with CCE. Just to compare. I will post my thoughts after I have completed the project.

I really apprieciate the replys guys. Y'all (BroBear, arniebear, Sophocles, L8ter, and of course the great jdobbs) are my shining light out of the dark world of one click backup...

LOL

Thanks again!

 

Sounds like a bit of hyperbole.

As for the software, all you should notice is that HC takes longer than CCE. If using CCE trialware, note that the Basic times out and is unusable and that SP has a logo on the video output. Doing a trial run with SP set to 2 passes shows how the Basic software works. To me it's a waste of time though. Run the HC encoder, if the quality meets your expectations and you want a bit more speed, spring for the CCE Basic. I guess the SP trial would be a good example of the time difference. Just remember to be sure CCE is set to 2 passes in RB. That's the limit for Basic, but that's all you need for good video output. Also, use the same movie in your experiment with the same content. Otherwise, how would you know the difference?

 

BroBear...

I am going to use a project I did using NeroVision4.

I made a Disc, with menus and everything, and burned it to my hardrive. It was about 8.5GB. I just rebuilt with HC, and it looks great. Now I am going to do the same 8.5GB file with CCE.

Does that fit your criteria? lol

Its good to know you are appreciated every now and again, isn't it?

hehehe

Jxp

 

Hmmm.... (scratches head) I reckon that must be the game where two superbole winners play each other.

 

LMAO

 

Nope. It's when one of the "bole" players gets hyper.

 

Are you guys sure that it's not Hyper-bole-ing with a 7-10 pin split?

 

[bold]THE HYPERBOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/bold]

 

OH!!! Now I get it... and I here I was thinking it was that place where all those people got trapped after the hurricane.

 

I redid my little Project using HC (Best quality), and it took over six hours to encode!!! I guess that is what was meant by, and I quote, it takes longer....

Is it normal to take that long?

I have a p4 2.6 ghrz with 1.2 GB of ram.

 

Oh and guys, I had to do a google on that word...

 

JXP2307

We did say that HC encoder takes a little longer but I haven't experienced a 6 hour encode ever. The longest I've ever had to deal with was about 3 hours with my P4 Northwood overclocked to 3.149 Ghz. Now I complain when it exceeds 65 minutes. CCE should get you to under 4 hours or better (3.5 hours). Use batch encode and you can do a couple DVd's while you're asleep and then a couple more while you're at work. Grab the pro version if you don't have it and you have the choice of doing movie only with menus, which is good for saving and accessing more than one soundtrack, and movie only for when the rest of the crap is not worth keeping.