Just wondering, say I'm compressing a 5-5.5 Gb movie into a 4.7 DVD-R, would I see a big difference in quality compared to Intervideo Copy3?
IC3 should do just as good of a job as DVDRB/CCE, when using that small amount of compression,and you will be saving alot of time too. I usually use copy 3 as a guideline.If I can get a level 4 or maybe even 3,I use IC3,if it is less than a 3 then its DVDRB/CCE time,or whatever encoder your using,with rebuilder...CCE is the best.IMHO
not being a transcoder fan i always prefer to spend a little more time on a decent ENcoder output i.e. rebuilder + procoder/hc/cce ...
It's always interesting to hear the opinions of intelligent people. I could argue in favor of you both. In posts that I made in other threads/forums on AD, I've taken both sides of this argument, and they both made sense for different reasons. Sometimes transcoding makes more sense because you might need your PC for other purposes. Purposes such as hanging out and wasting your time arguing stuff that no one else is interested in, but us. LMAO If you have time and more than one PC with unlimited time for specific projects, then choose to encode, because even you'll agree that the end result is going to be better, even if you can't see it. LOL
Sophocles, A topic to start the bickering for sure. However, I would have to follow your logic. A encoder will always produce the best overall quality compared to a transcoder. This fact still homes true on smaller bbackyps..
I use RB/CCE almost exclusively for encoding folders of all sizes after installing the rebuilder_low MS-DOS Batch File. I can encode and still dink around on sites like AD with very little or no lag time. Thanks to Vurbal and UncasMS.
Noya A transcoder compresses a movie in its current configuration but an encoder re encodes the entire movie as though for the first time. A transcoder takes its space largely from "B"frames (action scenes) but an encoder realocates space across the entire DVD thus making better use of bitrate.
