|
Guide for DVD-Rebuilder + HC, CCE or Procoder?
|
|
|
jamewoong
Newbie
|
26. June 2007 @ 04:31 |
Link to this message
|
As everyone know, there are lot of talking about these encoders with DVD Rebuilder Pro to make a perfect match and this is what I can see in the forum. I also notice it while googling the net - too much bla bla and no guide.
Can anyone provide me their "guide" - what options do we need to input in DVD Rebuilder to make a good DVD Backup? I've heard that CCE is popular by now, so a guide for it will be nice. But it doesn't kill if you guys can share your experience by making a guide for HC and Procoder too. This will be benefic for everyone (most for newbie)!
Between, I'm compressing a 10GB video to 4.5GB!
Thank you.
P.S: And yes... Testing is great, but it will take years to test. That's why it's better to start by a "hand" (your guide), then improvement will be started from there.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. June 2007 @ 04:44
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. June 2007 @ 06:42 |
Link to this message
|
My Guides--------->http://webpages.charter.net/bacitup/
Newbies------------>http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/183136
Software ------->http://webpages.charter.net/bacitup/software.htm |
|
jamewoong
Newbie
|
28. June 2007 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
I just use this guide and got bad quality output!!! Worst than Procoder 2!!!
Here's the quality of the original and the output (no EXTRA SETTING):
ORIGINAL
PROCODER 2 (MASTERING QUALITY)
CCE SP 2.7 - 3 PASS
Between, I didn't add any filtrer at all. Only change the VBR PASS TO 3 for CCE. I encoded a DVD-9 to DVD-5, so about 48% of compression.
I don't think this is normal because when I used Procoder, the result is much better even at 37% of compression! The only problem is (don't know the reason) I got some blocky (pixelation) image in the video - about 20-40 times in video. That's why I switch to CCE to see..., but now, I think I'll get back to Procoder. This CCE encoder sucks.
How did you guys got such quality video?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. June 2007 @ 13:28
|
Member
|
28. June 2007 @ 13:35 |
Link to this message
|
Generally, for higher compression, Procoder with Mastering Quality is better especially for interlaced sources. The same is true for HC.
However, if using CCE with high compression, you can try to use RB-Opt (latest version) after the Prepare phase. For every VOB-ID entry, click on CCE Settings and change the Filters Presets to Animation, and the matrix to reflect the average low bitrate, something like Very Low bitrate, Bach1, or AVAMAT7. I don't know if changing this will affect other unrelated parameters for the segments in the original ECL. You just have to compare the files and restore the overridden unrelated parameters, if needed. When done, encode a few segments and see how it turns out.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. June 2007 @ 14:35
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
29. June 2007 @ 03:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jamewoong:
I just use this guide and got bad quality output!!! Worst than Procoder 2!!!
Here's the quality of the original and the output:
ORIGINAL
ENCODED
Between, I didn't add any filtrer at all. Only change the VBR PASS TO 3. I encoded a DVD-9 to DVD-5, so about 48% of compression.
I don't think this is normal because when I used Procoder, the result is much better even at 37% of compression! The only problem is (don't know the reason) I got some blocky (pixelation) image in the video - about 20-40 times in video. That's why I switch to CCE to see..., but now, I think I'll get back to Procoder. This CCE encoder sucks.
How did you guys got such quality video?
What are the high/low & typical bitrates ?
What version of CCE are you using ?
|
|
jamewoong
Newbie
|
29. June 2007 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
What are the high/low & typical bitrates ?
What version of CCE are you using ?
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 47.9%
- Overall bitrate : 1,919/1,535Kbs
- Space for Video : 3,376,680KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 2,050/1,178/1,535 Kbs
I'm using CCE SP 2.7 & Retail Basic - both have the same result.
I'm getting sick to test... Hope someone can help me out.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. June 2007 @ 13:22
|
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
29. June 2007 @ 14:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
I thought as much.
Your best option is to use a dual layer disc.
The bit rate is very low and explains the poor image quality output.
Procoder appears to give a better image because it smooths out the picture.
If you do not or can not do a 1:1 copy then cut out everything and do movie only. But IMHO you should put this onto a DL disc.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. June 2007 @ 14:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. June 2007 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
I have never been one to compare captured images and then make a claim regarding quality. I tend to agree that procoder does a better job on lower bitrate material.
Is it just me or did anyone else notice the differences in the size of the images?
The one that is said to be the original comes in a 120.35 KB, the one identified as procoder is 123.42 KB, and the one that shows pixelation and said to be the CCE version is only a mere 18.88 KB. That means that the CCE image is more than 85% smaller than the procoder image.
Is that a fair comparison?
I compress digital photos all the time and that can mean the difference between acceptable quality and throw away quality. That would however explain some of the macro pixels seen in the CCE example.
Just some thoughts to consider.;)
" 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 30. June 2007 @ 12:10
|
|
jamewoong
Newbie
|
30. June 2007 @ 17:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
I have never been one to compare captured images and then make a claim regarding quality. I tend to agree that procoder does a better job on lower bitrate material.
Is it just me or did anyone else notice the differences in the size of the images?
The one that is said to be the original comes in a 120.35 KB, the one identified as procoder is 123.42 KB, and the one that shows pixelation and said to be the CCE version is only a mere 18.88 KB. That means that the CCE image is more than 85% smaller than the procoder image.
Is that a fair comparison?
I compress digital photos all the time and that can mean the difference between acceptable quality and throw away quality. That would however explain some of the macro pixels seen in the CCE example.
Just some thoughts to consider.;)
Smart from you, but you can't compare its size because when I ul it on the net, the site transform the original .BMP to jpg. What you are seeing is the truth output of it. That's why I'm wondering how people got their CCE in great quality. Even at 5 VBR PASS, the quality is worst than Procoder Mastering Qual.
If you use extra setting in DVD-RB, please let me know to see if it could fix the problem or not.
@pazzini: DVD Dual cost more than DVD-5, that's the reason why I (and people that use DVD-RB) want to compress to DVD-5.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. June 2007 @ 19:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Smart from you, but you can't compare its size
Actually, yes you can compare the frame size! What you can't compare are snapshots taken from a DVD. Your comparisons are worthless.
" 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/. |
|
pazzini
Suspended permanently
|
1. July 2007 @ 00:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jamewoong:
@pazzini: DVD Dual cost more than DVD-5, that's the reason why I (and people that use DVD-RB) want to compress to DVD-5.
Yes, they do cost a bit more than the normal blank DVD-5 but the prices are coming down all the time.
Due to the AVG bit rate of the source you will not get a better picture than what you already have achieved with Procoder/CCE. That is why I highly recommend using a DL disc.
Another member more advanced in DVD Rebuilder may recommend one of the many matrices available, but IMO you are very unlikely to get a better outcome than to what you already have.
BR
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. July 2007 @ 12:19 |
Link to this message
|
jamewoong
On a much tamer note. I am not entirely in disagreement with you. It's your methods of proof that I refute. I almost always use procoder on interlaced and low bit rate movies.
Here is a link to another test. You will note the discussions of P and B frames.
This is a debate that can go on forever without any resolution beyond that of personal preferences.
http://forum.videohelp.com/topic235665.html
" 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/. |
