|
|
|
HC or CCE - which is the better companion?
|
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
18. March 2007 @ 09:12 |
Link to this message
|
I must have been half asleep earlier, and posted something similar in the DVD-R Advanced section.
Anyway...
I have heard lots to support both HC and CCE, to go along with Rebuilder.
HC is native to it, but I am told that CCE produces comparable results and is faster.
Would the native interaction of HC or the greater speed of CCE, the comparable results in mind, be better?
Are the results comparable?
Money and time aside, which companion do you favour and why?
Thanks.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
19. March 2007 @ 01:47 |
Link to this message
|
Money and time aside (we are not talking much money here, $49 - $58 for CCE Basic), I opt for CCE. Both produce excellent results, but CCE's edge in speed wins me over. I must admit, however, that since my new build, I haven't used HC with "multiple encoder processes" enabled. Maybe someone has some times to compare with a Core2Duo processor in their rig. I'll try to make a few comparisons in the next few days.
Dropbox: http://db.tt/p5P9bH1d
System 1: Core2Quad Q6600 O/Ced @ 3.15 GHz, Gigabyte GA EP35 DS4 mobo, Zalman 9700, 4GB PC6400 RAM, Sapphire Radeon 2600HD Pro, Samsung 920BW 19" Widescreen LCD, Hauppauge! PVR-350.
System 2: Core2Duo E6400 O/Ced @ 3.2 GHz, Gigabyte GA 965P S3 mobo, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, 2GB PC6400 RAM, PNY GeForce 6600, Hyundai B70A 17" LCD. |
Member
|
19. March 2007 @ 07:39 |
Link to this message
|
Check my sig for encoder/transcoder comparisons...hope it helps some. HC is great, but slow compared to CCE, especially since I have a single core processor. My vote is for CCE, but I suggest downloading the trial and do a couple of test runs for yourself, nobody is going to be a better judge of what you like more than you. :)
|
Senior Member
|
19. March 2007 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
Well put, ebega. I was looking for that thread earlier. Excellent info!!! I may do a movie or two with HC and CCE to give him/her an idea of the time differences...
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
19. March 2007 @ 10:20 |
Link to this message
|
Brass tacks: HC took almost an hour longer, using your example, unless I misread something.
Do you feel it is that much better, to justify an hour?
I have a DVD-9 that I want to backup and remove the region coding on (this I have no problem with), crunching it down to a DVD-5. I'd like to do this for a friend who is quite discerning.
We can all be wise when looking at stills, but could you tell there was a difference when the images were moving?
|
Member
|
19. March 2007 @ 11:24 |
Link to this message
|
Honestly, I couldn't tell a huge difference in moving picture comparisons, but I would have to say that the edge for both quality and speed go to CCE. Like I said before, just download a trial of CCE and give it a go, but IMHO, CCE would probably be the best bet if you are not concerned about spending the $60 (or so) for it.
|
Senior Member
|
20. March 2007 @ 14:29 |
Link to this message
|
As promised. (Source file is 7.64GB; full disc; menu encoding enabled; multiple encoder processes enabled; HC- best quality; CCE- 2 passes; output to ISO) HC Encoder version is 19.0.1 (I don't know how much faster version 20 is, sorry. Should have upgraded first.) CCE is version SP 2.67. CCE is almost 50% faster. Quality is virtually indinstinguishable between the two.
[16:36:53] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.23.1
- AVISYNTH 2.5.6.0
- HC encoder selected
- Source: BLOOD DIAMOND
- VTS_01: 3,927,965 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 210,679 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- VTS_02: 78,297 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 8,134 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 59.2%
- Overall bitrate : 4,184/3,347Kbs
- Space for Video : 3,728,972KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 8,808/1,805/3,347 Kbs
[16:39:11] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 3 minutes.
[16:39:11] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 7
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 8
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 9
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 10
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 11
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 12
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 13
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 14
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 15
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 16
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 17
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 18
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 19
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 20
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 21
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 22
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 23
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 24
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 25
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 26
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 27
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 28
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 29
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 30
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 31
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 32
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 33
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 34
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 35
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 36
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 37
- Creating M2V for VTS_02 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_02 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_02 segment 2
- Extracting STILLS for VTS_02 segment 3
[17:40:21] Phase II ENCODING completed in 61 minutes.
[17:40:21] Phase III, REBUILD started.
- Copying IFO, BUP, and unaltered files...
- Processing VTS_01
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 2 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_02
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 3 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_03
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 4 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_04
- Rebuilding seg 4 VOBID 5 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_05
- Rebuilding seg 5 VOBID 6 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 6 VOBID 6 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 7 VOBID 6 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 8 VOBID 6 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 9 VOBID 6 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 10 VOBID 6 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 11 VOBID 6 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 12 VOBID 6 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 13 VOBID 6 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 14 VOBID 6 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 15 VOBID 6 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 16 VOBID 6 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 17 VOBID 6 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 18 VOBID 6 CELLID 14
- Rebuilding seg 19 VOBID 6 CELLID 15
- Rebuilding seg 20 VOBID 6 CELLID 16
- Rebuilding seg 21 VOBID 6 CELLID 17
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_06
- Rebuilding seg 22 VOBID 7 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 23 VOBID 7 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 24 VOBID 7 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 25 VOBID 7 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 26 VOBID 7 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 27 VOBID 7 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 28 VOBID 7 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 29 VOBID 7 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 30 VOBID 7 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 31 VOBID 7 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 32 VOBID 7 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 33 VOBID 7 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 34 VOBID 7 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 35 VOBID 7 CELLID 14
- Rebuilding seg 36 VOBID 7 CELLID 15
- Rebuilding seg 37 VOBID 7 CELLID 16
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_07
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_01_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Processing VTS_02
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 2 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_02
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 3 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_03
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 4 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_04
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_02_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Correcting VTS Sectors...
- Building ISO Image...
- Removing DVD files
- ISO Image successfully created.
[17:52:07] Phase III, REBUILD completed in 12 minutes.
Done.
[17:52:07] PREPARE/ENCODE/REBUILD completed in 76 min.
[17:52:07] One Click encoding activated...
-----------------
[17:52:07] Phase I, PREPARATION started.
- DVD-RB v1.23.1
- AVISYNTH 2.5.6.0
- CCE 2.62+ encoder selected.
- Source: BLOOD DIAMOND
- VTS_01: 3,927,965 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 210,679 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- VTS_02: 78,297 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 8,134 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 59.2%
- Overall bitrate : 4,184/3,347Kbs
- Space for Video : 3,728,972KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 8,808/1,805/3,347 Kbs
[17:54:28] Phase I, PREPARATION completed in 2 minutes.
[17:54:28] Phase II ENCODING started
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 2
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 3
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 4
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 5
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 6
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 7
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 8
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 9
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 10
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 11
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 12
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 13
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 14
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 15
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 16
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 17
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 18
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 19
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 20
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 21
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 22
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 23
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 24
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 25
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 26
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 27
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 28
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 29
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 30
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 31
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 32
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 33
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 34
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 35
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 36
- Creating M2V for VTS_01 segment 37
- Creating M2V for VTS_02 segment 0
- Creating M2V for VTS_02 segment 1
- Creating M2V for VTS_02 segment 2
- Extracting STILLS for VTS_02 segment 3
[18:34:01] Phase II ENCODING completed in 40 minutes.
[18:34:01] Phase III, REBUILD started.
- Copying IFO, BUP, and unaltered files...
- Processing VTS_01
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 2 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_02
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 3 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_03
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 4 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_04
- Rebuilding seg 4 VOBID 5 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_05
- Rebuilding seg 5 VOBID 6 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 6 VOBID 6 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 7 VOBID 6 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 8 VOBID 6 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 9 VOBID 6 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 10 VOBID 6 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 11 VOBID 6 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 12 VOBID 6 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 13 VOBID 6 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 14 VOBID 6 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 15 VOBID 6 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 16 VOBID 6 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 17 VOBID 6 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 18 VOBID 6 CELLID 14
- Rebuilding seg 19 VOBID 6 CELLID 15
- Rebuilding seg 20 VOBID 6 CELLID 16
- Rebuilding seg 21 VOBID 6 CELLID 17
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_06
- Rebuilding seg 22 VOBID 7 CELLID 1
- Rebuilding seg 23 VOBID 7 CELLID 2
- Rebuilding seg 24 VOBID 7 CELLID 3
- Rebuilding seg 25 VOBID 7 CELLID 4
- Rebuilding seg 26 VOBID 7 CELLID 5
- Rebuilding seg 27 VOBID 7 CELLID 6
- Rebuilding seg 28 VOBID 7 CELLID 7
- Rebuilding seg 29 VOBID 7 CELLID 8
- Rebuilding seg 30 VOBID 7 CELLID 9
- Rebuilding seg 31 VOBID 7 CELLID 10
- Rebuilding seg 32 VOBID 7 CELLID 11
- Rebuilding seg 33 VOBID 7 CELLID 12
- Rebuilding seg 34 VOBID 7 CELLID 13
- Rebuilding seg 35 VOBID 7 CELLID 14
- Rebuilding seg 36 VOBID 7 CELLID 15
- Rebuilding seg 37 VOBID 7 CELLID 16
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_07
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_01_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Processing VTS_02
- Reading/processing TMAP table...
- Rebuilding seg 0 VOBID 1 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_01
- Rebuilding seg 1 VOBID 2 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_02
- Rebuilding seg 2 VOBID 3 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_03
- Rebuilding seg 3 VOBID 4 CELLID 1
- Updating NAVPACKS for VOBID_04
- Updated VTS_C_ADT.
- Updated VTS_VOBU_ADMAP.
- Updated IFO: VTS_02_0.IFO
- Updating TMAP table...
- Correcting VTS Sectors...
- Building ISO Image...
- Removing DVD files
- ISO Image successfully created.
[18:46:05] Phase III, REBUILD completed in 12 minutes.
Done.
[18:46:05] PREPARE/ENCODE/REBUILD completed in 54 min.
BATCH SUMMARY
Dropbox: http://db.tt/p5P9bH1d
System 1: Core2Quad Q6600 O/Ced @ 3.15 GHz, Gigabyte GA EP35 DS4 mobo, Zalman 9700, 4GB PC6400 RAM, Sapphire Radeon 2600HD Pro, Samsung 920BW 19" Widescreen LCD, Hauppauge! PVR-350.
System 2: Core2Duo E6400 O/Ced @ 3.2 GHz, Gigabyte GA 965P S3 mobo, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, 2GB PC6400 RAM, PNY GeForce 6600, Hyundai B70A 17" LCD. |
|
jlrm365
Member
|
20. March 2007 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
So CCE is quicker. We knew that, as ebega had already directed readers towards the comparison link in his signature. Speed is not the issue. Quality is (and whether the faster can match the quality of the slower). You had already spoken of quality, albeit briefly, so I am not quite sure what that post was for.
|
Senior Member
|
20. March 2007 @ 15:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
The point of that post was to quell my, and other's, curiousity as to whether HC with multiple processes had closed the "time" gap any... I haven't used HC in about a year...
Dropbox: http://db.tt/p5P9bH1d
System 1: Core2Quad Q6600 O/Ced @ 3.15 GHz, Gigabyte GA EP35 DS4 mobo, Zalman 9700, 4GB PC6400 RAM, Sapphire Radeon 2600HD Pro, Samsung 920BW 19" Widescreen LCD, Hauppauge! PVR-350.
System 2: Core2Duo E6400 O/Ced @ 3.2 GHz, Gigabyte GA 965P S3 mobo, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, 2GB PC6400 RAM, PNY GeForce 6600, Hyundai B70A 17" LCD. |
|
jlrm365
Member
|
20. March 2007 @ 15:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok. Which are the lines that indicate how many passes each was set to?
You seem to like testing, so it would be interesting to see how older versions of HC have progressed.
|
Senior Member
|
21. March 2007 @ 01:52 |
Link to this message
|
i have seen the same results time and time again, when speaking of quality output, CCE and HC are iqual, yes CCE is faster but HC is free so take your pick. i hardly use rebuilder because i don't owned a big TV,35' but, the times i have use it, it is been with HC and i can tell you, there is no need to pay for a encoder, HC quality is great.
Nero Recode2 or Shrink using deep analysis and AEC/ fabdecrypter or anydvd running in the background/ IMGBurn to burn/main movie only mode= perfect.
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
21. March 2007 @ 03:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have seen responses, on another forum, that have preferred HC for quality. I will most probably start with it and see what happens.
This issue has more or less been exhausted, so thanks.
|
Member
|
21. March 2007 @ 07:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Glad to see your going to use your computer time to do some of your own testing. Our opinions on the matter can only go so far, and I still suggest you encode a movie using both encoders and decide for yourself, that will probably be the only way you are going to get a definitive answer.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. March 2007 @ 07:17
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
21. March 2007 @ 08:56 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jlrm365:
I have seen responses, on another forum, that have preferred HC for quality. I will most probably start with it and see what happens.
HC produces a better picture for movies that have a low bit rate compared to CCE, but as Ebega suggested doing some comparisons for yourself is the best way to go.
Note: This is IMO only. ;-)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. March 2007 @ 08:57
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
21. March 2007 @ 15:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Normally I would, but I have heard enough folks - on another forum and whose opinions I trust - go for HC. I just wanted to see the counter-thoughts / stances. Much appreciated.
That's all the info needed, thanks.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. March 2007 @ 11:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The point of that post was to quell my, and other's, curiousity as to whether HC with multiple processes had closed the "time" gap
HC does indeed close the time gap, but as we all know CCE is natively SMP ready (Dual threaded)and has an advantage there and also with quality in my view. HC is a great freeware encoder and in time it might even rise to the top but for now in this debate, CCE is supreme. For those who are really into testing give Canoppus procoder a try as well. On interlaced video you won't be disappoiinted except for speed. It too can be ran using multiple processes.
" 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 24. March 2007 @ 11:32
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
24. March 2007 @ 12:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Great, but I will be going with HC for starters. I have heard plenty of worthy support for it.
I have enough info on the differences, thanks. Subject done!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. March 2007 @ 16:02 |
Link to this message
|
jlrm365
I wasn't debating with you, I was merely answering your original question.
Quote:
I have heard lots to support both HC and CCE, to go along with Rebuilder.but I am told that CCE produces comparable results and is faster.
Quote:
HC is native to it
Actually HC is not native to Rebuilder, we were all testing RB with CCE for a year or more before HC came along.
That doesn't mean however that I would argue against your interest in using HC instead of CCE. It's both good and free and that should be enough for anyone who supports it. I know that jdobbs does! But as far as I know he does most if not all of his original testing with CCE.
" 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 24. March 2007 @ 16:04
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
24. March 2007 @ 18:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
The question had been answered, as far as it needed to be. I have more than enough information, which is a good thing.
Thanks, but I have chosen to go with the opinions of another set of users on another forum and chose HC.
As before, all questions have been answered and no more need be added.
Thanks.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. March 2007 @ 19:43 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The question had been answered, as far as it needed to be. I have more than enough information, which is a, good thing.
Thanks, but I have chosen to go with the opinions of another set of users on another forum and chose HC.
The question might have been answered in your mind, but perhaps not in the minds of others who are still following this thread. I wish you well on your journey of discovery. I am certain that the unmentioned forum where you've found success has served your needs well, but as long as this source of success remains unnamed you will stand alone in its benefits.
All knowledge us cumulative!
" 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/. |
|
jlrm365
Member
|
25. March 2007 @ 01:34 |
Link to this message
|
The question was mine to ask and has been answered as I asked it.
If others require more information, they are more than welcome to post.
Otherwise, if a more specific question need be asked, a more specific thread may be created.
I have not at all stood (and do not at all stand) alone, as its number exceeds this one.
Balance has been achieved, as this forum presented the case for CCE.
I have chosen not to go with it, but it's been good to read the thoughts and ideas of users.
More information than was necessary has been presented and all questions answered.
No more need be said, the thread may pass and I thank the first posts for their information.
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2007 @ 08:04 |
Link to this message
|
@jlrm:
Definitley no offense intended, but you are more than welcome to unsubscribe from this thread. As Sophocles said, there are more viewers that will, probably, in your opinion (and mine), "beat this dead horse." As a long-time member, I'm sure Sophocles has seen it countless times. The aim is to provide as much information as possible to eliminate the need for new threads. Undoubtedly, new threads WILL appear. Many even asking the EXACT question you did originally! But we will try to make this one as informative as possible nonetheless.
I hope my tone doesn't come across as taking sides, but you've got to let the information flow. Be thankful no one tried to hijack your thread. LOL... Anyway, I am positive that you will find the results of HC satisfying. Had I had a more powerful/faster computer when I first started encoding, I may have used HC even more!!!! I would definitely recommend it to anyone.
I am a member of a couple of other forums as well (and a "lurker" in many, many more), and I won't hesitate to point a poster to a specific thread elsewhere if it is the best source. The HC versus CCE question is so opinionated and varied in preference. Just get both!!! LOL I use both as well as Procoder2. I like to play!!!
Good luck!!!
Edited for punctuation
Dropbox: http://db.tt/p5P9bH1d
System 1: Core2Quad Q6600 O/Ced @ 3.15 GHz, Gigabyte GA EP35 DS4 mobo, Zalman 9700, 4GB PC6400 RAM, Sapphire Radeon 2600HD Pro, Samsung 920BW 19" Widescreen LCD, Hauppauge! PVR-350.
System 2: Core2Duo E6400 O/Ced @ 3.2 GHz, Gigabyte GA 965P S3 mobo, Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro, 2GB PC6400 RAM, PNY GeForce 6600, Hyundai B70A 17" LCD.This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. March 2007 @ 08:07
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
25. March 2007 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
I do not know you, for any words to cause offence. You may take your own advice.
This one has been informative to the point it has more than answered my original question(s).
I should be thankful someone didn?t hijack the thread? What for?
As long as the hijacker had something to ask about Rebuilder, which had not already been covered in the thread, it would be constructive and welcome.
I would be happy to abandon the thread and let the person run with it.
Progress is good.
At the moment, all of my questions have been answered and no more information is required.
---
Indeed the debate is opinionated. I could see that more here represent CCE than HC. More on another forum represent HC.
I found their arguments and angles more persuasive.
Thanks for the info.
Job done ;)
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. March 2007 @ 09:32 |
Link to this message
|
jlrm365
Quote:
Would the native interaction of HC or the greater speed of CCE, the comparable results in mind, be better?
As pointed out, HC is no more native than any of the other supported encoders. CCE covers a lot of programming. The utltimate version is hardware based and costs several thousand dollars. I suspect you're thinking Basic. Seems professional trades support CCE and you only occasionally hear about HC on a few forums. That said, for use with RB, HC is good and CCE is slightly better overall. Springing for the price of CCE is a personal choice, slightly better and a bit faster is what the user is paying cash for. I'll just add, CCE SP is superior to both, but should be for a $2000 program.
Are the results comparable?
Already covered.
Money and time aside, which companion do you favour and why?
CCE SP, but that wasn't your intended question. When there's a slight difference in speed and overall quality, with money not considered, the better program is a no brainer, CCE.
I browsed over your thread and noticed you came to make a statement rather than ask a question. Obviously you were at least partially misinformed by your secret sources. Sophocles pointed out HC is not native to RB, just another supported encoder. Some people were using RB/CCE before the handy installer came about to make it easier for beginners. They remember such details from experience. HC came later. I don't debate the quality of HC. I've tried most of the supported encoders from Basic to the old 2.5 SP through to the new CCE SP2, including HC. I'd like to know who is making statements on the superiority of HC over CCE and on what forum. Links to supporting, credible sources would go a long way to support your assertions. It appears you have no desire to make that knowledge public so the info and source can be reviewed. HC is good, but for different reasons CCE and ProCoder are better. Sophocles covered that information for you already.
We appreciate your dropping in to tell us how much you are sold on HC. No offense, but you appear to have come with your mind already made up. You'll have to forgive us if we don't take your statements as fact. Apparently you're going by suggestions from a source you're ashamed to expose. From your statements it appears you've not even tried the program. So you have no room to question anyone's experienced opinions until you show some sources and have done some actual work with the software on your own. With your being sold on HC (before even using the program) and considering all others inferior, your future statements may be suspect. Your intentions for this thread already are.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2007 @ 10:12
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
jlrm365
Member
|
26. March 2007 @ 10:23 |
Link to this message
|
I end both the subject and first post (thanks aside) with a question. Need it be clearer?
No argument has been based on the words of this other forum, so there is no need to quote it and I choose not to.
This appears to be a forum too and so I am able to question whomever I choose, though that person is as welcome not to respond.
Which program am I meant not to have used? CCE?
Information is valuable. Personal issues are not.
All questions have been answered. Thanks to those who chose to contribute!
|
|
