|
Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here.
|
|
|
Datman
Junior Member
|
27. September 2005 @ 15:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear,
I have a p4 3.0 ,1.024 g of ram and around 70 g of space on hd. I never had a problem with 1.0 rc51
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. September 2005 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is one that we all overlook a lot but can cause skips, a fragmented hard disk.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Datman
Junior Member
|
27. September 2005 @ 16:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
I defrag often
I just reprocessed and burned one project with no problems
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. September 2005 @ 16:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
When you're adding and deleting multi-gig files you have to defrag often. Windows defragger isn't all that great but if you keep up on it you'll be okay.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Datman
Junior Member
|
27. September 2005 @ 17:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use executive software "diskeeper" about every 3rd project. I did not defrag before my resent successful project
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. September 2005 @ 17:08
|
Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 04:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey all
Apologies for posting this - I would appreciate an answer to my question for using DVD-RB and Qu-Enc:-
I have got hold off the latest build 0.94 of DVD-RB, yet want to know about installing Qu-Enc...
Would it install with the installer from DVD-RB, or would I have to install it separately from its own download?
Where do I install it - in the same folder as DVD-RB, or in its own folder?
Please let me know accordingly - all responses will be gratefully welcome.
Thanks
Happy37
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2005 @ 04:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
When I used the free ver. I since bought the Pro, it just installed with the installer and you just choose it. It worked out well except my file came out too big. I prefer the HCenc much better does a beautiful job.
|
Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
arniebear
Thanks for the prompt reply - regarding HC - does this also come with the installer, or do you have to download and install it separately, and from where do you download it?
Where do I install it - in the same folder as DVD-RB, or in its own folder?
Please let me know accordingly - I am now looking at using DVD-RB after my recent problems with DVD X Copy 5 which you know about.
Regards and thanks once again
Happy37
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2005 @ 04:57
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2005 @ 04:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 04:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
HC, QuEnc, and ReJig all come with the installer.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
@jdobbs
Loving the program it is working excellently, thanks for doing such a good job :)
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Cool...
Stay tuned, there is more planned.
|
Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
arniebear
Thanks again for the response - have got the quickstart guide and printed it off for reference.
DVD-RB has since been updated to version 0.95.
Will let you know in due course as to how I get on.
Regards
Happy37
|
Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
jdobbs
Thanks for letting us know that the installer comes with HC, QuEnc, and ReJig.
Does the latest version 0.95 also have all three with it as well?
Please keep up the good work - it will be my first time using DVD-RB and the encoders...will post back and let you know how I get on.
Regards and thanks
Happy37
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yep. They come with the installer in each version.
Just to make sure credit is given where credit is due:
HC Encoder is written by Hank315
ReJig is written by NIC based upon GNU sources.
QuEnc is written by NIC based upon GNU (FFMPEG) libraries.
It is amazing and a direct result of the impact the Internet is having on our societies that the software industry is evolving to a point at which individuals can compete with the large software houses in terms of quality and service. These packages are good examples.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2005 @ 05:45
|
Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
@jdobbs
Thanks again - and yes, credit should be given where it is due, and thanks to you as well for doing all this work.
Please keep it up.
Will post back and let you know how I get on.
Regards
Happy37
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2005 @ 05:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well it took me awhile to get RB going with HCenc, which I got to say Hank did a great job on, and although I did buy the CCE Basic I do prefer Hanks. Seems all the problem was my AviSynth version, once I installed a previous version all worked fine. Everyone who contributed to this program is tops in my book.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2005 @ 05:48
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 06:08 |
Link to this message
|
I think the only advantage CCE Basic has over HC is speed. It's about twice as fast on my system. But since DVD-RB emphasizes quality over speed, I'm not sure how much of a factor that really is.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2005 @ 06:12 |
Link to this message
|
I agree on the speed part CCE is faster, but IMHO I think HC does a more thorough job. I am sure those who have more expertise may disagree, but I really like the quality of HC over CCE.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. September 2005 @ 09:13 |
Link to this message
|
Can't see that much difference myself, except HC is free and takes about twice as long to do the task compared to CCE. I think free may be the operative word for many. Slow good is all well and good, but at some point one has to realize time has some value, unless you're just running encodes or batches of them when the PC wouldn't normally be in use. Then with CCE you could do twice as many. Can't say I'll go to some of the extremes of getting encode times down that some do, but just using an encoder that has the proven quality along with speed advantages is a "no brainer" for me.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2005 @ 09:17 |
Link to this message
|
Just did Star Trek V doing movie only and used HC with 1 pass and slow encode, total time was 77 minutes from start to finish on the new comp took twice that long on the old one. Am redoing now with CCE on 2 pass to see if there is a difference.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. September 2005 @ 10:27 |
Link to this message
|
Didn't mean to get you started doing time trials there Arniebear. We've gone into that before. Different processors and systems give different times. But so far, from the experience of those using both HC and CCE, the general consensus is that HC takes significantly longer to do the task. That has been stated by the author of RB as well.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. September 2005 @ 13:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
arniebear
Quality reports can sometimes be subjective and your point of view is as good as anyones, so let them disagree. HC is free and because it's free it makes RB Pro one hell of good deal.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. September 2005 @ 13:28
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
29. September 2005 @ 17:17 |
Link to this message
|
Good point Sophocles... So why give them? LOL Subjective reports that is. ;) Seriously though, most people have reported both HC and CCE as being good. Their benefits and drawbacks have already been stated; HC is good, but slow, it's free though; CCE is good, relatively faster than the other supported transcoders, but it is retail. It's just up to the users whether they want to put up with the wasted time.
Hardware is only good for whatever it's lifespan amounts to, variable I know. However, using it at high output for encoding constantly, one is using a lot of processing time for the particular endeavor. Then look at the effective work done with the equipment. Just looking at 1000 hrs for RB/HC, you have RB/CCE doing the same amount of work in about 666 hrs or less (if you only see a 1/3 time improvement with CCE over HC. Thats at least 14 days (probably over 20 or more in most cases) that the processor is working at full capacity; 24 hours per day. Just think how fast you use up the usable lifespan of any processor that way. Sometimes spending a few bucks saves some money in the long run. Now if constantly grinding away with the processor maxed out doesn't matter, by all means batch at night and use the free HC. If I'm doing a lot of batches, I'd still prefer to get 4 or 5 encodes in than settling for 2, maybe 3, in the same time frame. If one is going to do just the occasional encode, then by all means use the free HC. I'd say don't even spend the money on a donation, but there jdobbs has done a lot of work and he deserves some support for his efforts. You also get the donor (Pro) version which is a good upgrade from the regular public beta. Shameless plug for jdobbs, but he deserves it if you appreciate RB. LOL
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
29. September 2005 @ 17:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
I just noticed that AFTERDAWN is still listing 0.94 as the latest freeware version. How do you get them to update it?
|
