|
|
|
How good did Rebuilder do?
|
|
Junior Member
|
2. May 2006 @ 16:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
i dont know what noise is
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
rahzel54
Newbie
|
2. May 2006 @ 16:42 |
Link to this message
|
i think its pretty well known that CCE produces a fairly noisy picture.
keep in mind that bigscreen TV's actually show noise less compared to say, a computer monitor or regular CRT TV.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. May 2006 @ 16:47 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
i think its pretty well known that CCE produces a fairly noisy picture.
where have you been and who backs you up on this? All the experienced and older members, here in AfterDawn, all agree...you can't get better than DVD-Rebuilder Pro with CCE! I don't know where your statement came from and I disagree with that! goes against everything I learned here from THE MASTERS
|
|
rahzel54
Newbie
|
2. May 2006 @ 17:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
i dont see anyone backing you up either... i know what im seeing... if you're satisifed with your results, then good for you. if you just google "CCE noisy picture" youll find plenty of results.
i didnt say CCE + DVD-RB DIDN'T give the best results, so stop putting words in my mouth please (although that is arguable, as some prefer HC Encoder, or Procoder). however, for movies where the source is already fairly noisy, CCE can produce a fairly ugly picture, without the use of filters and matrices. again, that is my opinion, if you're happy with your results, good for f...... you.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. May 2006 @ 17:39
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. May 2006 @ 17:39 |
Link to this message
|
Oh I know plenty of guys that claim CCE is the best with RB! it's a give me!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. May 2006 @ 17:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
try to keep it clean.....I don't curse at you!
if you have a source that is noisey don't expect an encoder or a transcoder to give you better quality! It only goes down from there! ok.. so take it where it comes from! and clean up your act.....you don't have to curse.... you have your opinions and I have mine and just because I disagree with you doesn't make you any better by cursing! talk like a person! and this isn't a pissing contest were who can shout or curse the loudest wins. Just my 2 cents........
|
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
2. May 2006 @ 18:28 |
Link to this message
|
I back him up in a lot of cases Ihoe!
cce is for speed and a good transition into rb-land coming from say shrink, or any transcoder rb gives you such a good output that most are pacified with CCE and the speed is a big bonus.
although there will be those that will swear that "cce is the best, IMO"
it's just that there opinion.
For most of my movies I turn to other encoders in my arsenal, lately I've been toying with AQE with QMatOp enabled whidh is now inherintly incorporated into rb, it's climbing the list.
*note it is slower but then again that goes to prefferences
*another note this is a silly thing to get mad about.
@ crouch 57 Quote:
what is this noise i keep hearing about?
noise is a fuzzy or blurred effect usually found in area's of high contrast, in extreme cases like some old movies it can also be a dot or string of dots of a different color in the middle of a flat field.
this is caused by an encoders innability to accurately relate each pixel with it's surroundinng pixels according to there placement in the original source.
that's the best I can do 4 you, hope you understand
L8
|
Member
|
2. May 2006 @ 21:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
@L8ter
What kind of time differences are you seeing with the freeware encoder? I realize system specs are going to determine speed, but what is your average CCE time (and how many passes) compared to the same (or similar) movie with the freeware encoder (and how many passes). Just curious, especially if this has the potential to give better results than CCE.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. May 2006 @ 21:41
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
2. May 2006 @ 23:53 |
Link to this message
|
I'm not taking sides but rb with any encoder is a huge improvement over any transcoding software. Personally I prefer CCE but then again all the folders I encode are late releases and clean. If I was to encode something old I would probably go with hc encoder. For late releases I can't see that hc is superior to CCE and can't justify the extra time hc requires to encode. I do have a 52" HDTV BTW.
Rig #1 Asus Rampage Formula Mobo, Intel Core2Quad Q9450 CPU @ 3.55ghz, 2gb Corsair DDR2 1066 Dominator Ram @ 5-5-5-15, TR Ultra 120 Extreme w/ Scythe 9 blade 110 cfm 120mm Fan HSF, HIS Radeon 512mb HD3850 IceQ TurboX GPU, Corsair 620HX P/S, CM Stacker 830 Evo Case, Rig #2 Asus P5W DH Deluxe Mobo, Intel C2D E6600 CPU @ 3.6ghz, 2gb Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 Ram @ 4-4-4-12-2t, Zalman CNPS9500LED HSF, Sapphire Radeon X850XT PE GPU, Corsair 620HX P/S, Cooler Master Mystique Case, Viewsonic 20.1" Widescreen Digital LCD Monitor, Klipsch Promedia Ultra 5.1 THX Desktop Speakers, http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=348351 http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=236435 |
|
rahzel54
Newbie
|
3. May 2006 @ 01:12 |
Link to this message
|
i think some people are misunderstanding me here... i didnt necessarily say that DVD-RB + an encoder is worse than a transcoder... all i said is the pro version is worth it, and without the advanced settings like using filters and different matrices, it CAN produce video thats worse than your average transcoder.
ive done MANY tests on the movie "Gladiator". in the first 20 minutes or so, there is a lot of noisy scenes. DVDShrink + Sharp AEC and deep analysis removed some detail, but smoothened out the noise (similar to HC Encoder, as HC is better at lower bitrates and interlaced material IMO). CCE with the default settings on the other hand, the video was quite noisy (even moreso than the source) and also introduced some macroblocking, but it did keep WAY more detail than shrink did. using filters like Undot(), and using a different matrix like QLB or AutoQ2 helped remove some noise and macroblocking.
for newer, cleaner movies, DVD-RB + CCE is better than any transoder hands down. again, all im saying is without learning the advanced settings, there are some movies that CCE + DVD-RB can actually produce a worse output than a transoder.
|
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
3. May 2006 @ 03:00 |
Link to this message
|
@ebega Quote:
What kind of time differences are you seeing with the freeware encoder?
AQE with QMatOp you will see a very significant time increase, but it does a lot of tweaking for those harder to get perfect movies.
let me see I remember encoding phantom menace several times w/ cce and could hardly chase away the mosquitos (noise) I finally allowed pro2 to do it's thing, I will be trying it again with my new toy.
as for times it varies but for the most part I get like 70-120 min's doing 3-pass with cce but I can achieve the same times using procoder2 since I can run multiple instances. see here>> http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/327437
(scroll down a bit)
@ rhazelQuote:
there are some movies that CCE + DVD-RB can actually produce a worse output than a transoder.
I personally have never seen this, not to say that I've looked all that hard, but I was alway's more impressed with dvd-rb than the late great shrink.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. May 2006 @ 03:13
|
|
rahzel54
Newbie
|
3. May 2006 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
again, with the DEFAULT settings (ie no filters or matrices used, just 3pass vbr), CCE can produce an overall worse picture. i compared with the movie gladiator with CCE vs shrink, but i guess it WAS arguable which was better.
without any filters or matrices CCE kept more detail, but added a little more noise and macroblocking in some smokey and high contrast scenes, while shrink removed some detail, but smoothened out the noise (even less noise than the source). so if you dont mind the slight noise, i guess you could say CCE's output was better. i myself found the noise and blocking very unattractive. although the noise and blocking wasnt BAD, i rather have a slightly smoothened picture without noise and blocking.
now i used the UnDot() filter and the AUtoQ2 matrix, and it removed some noise, and didnt remove any notieable detail. so now, with the use of filters and matrices, it made it clearly better than shrink.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. May 2006 @ 13:14
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
L8ter
Suspended permanently
|
3. May 2006 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
oh okay now we get it. *sigh*
|
|
