|
Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here.
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
17. February 2005 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ozzy
Hope you aren't that naive. What's to hack on a trial? For starters, if the logo water mark recorded to the video is removed from the SP Trial programming, then a functional program has essentially been stolen. Boils down to grand theft when you consider the theft is of a $2000 program.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
scwtlover
Newbie
|
18. February 2005 @ 05:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I mentioned only the doom9.org forum because (1) jdobbs and rockas regularly participate and (2) reading it helped me solve my problem. I did not mention the dvdrebuilder.com forum, or any of the other fora I've found, because they were not helpful. In particular, the dvdrebuilder.com does yet not have much content.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
18. February 2005 @ 14:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
If the watermark is removed then so is the entire area that it covered because there's nothing underneath it to recover.
" 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/. |
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
18. February 2005 @ 14:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
I purchased the CCE basic, have no reason to use hacked or stolen software, simply downloaded a trial version that did not work. Have since downloaded the trial from links on CCe site, with no problems, although I still had problems as before from 3 links from CCE.
PS: the 2.50 version I got first to try the programs out had no water mark, just as the 2.70 trial downloaded.
Since my basic upgrade only alows 2.69 at the moment I was simply interested in any quality improvements in 2.70. Maybe I should have simply asked for a review.
PPS: Im sure that the trials do not have and can not be changed to the full fuctionality of the SP programs, hence whats the point and whats to hack. Nieve NO practical YES!
PPPS: Grand theft is an american demestic law' and has no relivence in International-internet-copyright-property-law.
Ozzy
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. February 2005 @ 14:26
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
18. February 2005 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ozzy666
I don't judge anyone. But I personally don't advocate piracy. All I was saying was that I didn't feel right about helping.
BTW: The "Works" version has all the functionality of the retail version. But in use with DVD-RB there really isn't any noticable difference in quality between SP and Basic. The impact of the extra passes has been debated for a long time -- and most generally agree that the improvement is marginal.
Most of the bells and whistles of CCE SP are only useful to video professionals.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. February 2005 @ 14:48
|
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
18. February 2005 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
jdobbs
I was responding to BroBear. I took no offence to you not helping once I knew it was a pirated version.
I use your software because I can no longer afford to replace the library of movies I have collected for myself and my kids,(So much for the indistructable media touted years ago).
BTW: Well then maybe I am naive, I would have thought that the trials would not contain the full functions of the retail, to be hacked.
Ozzy
|
|
jdobbs
Senior Member
|
18. February 2005 @ 16:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's interesting. In all previous Trials it was hamstrung by not being able to read or write ECL files. So that combined with the watermark kept it reasonably "Trial" -- but this latest trial version was made more breakable. It makes you wonder if someone "forgot" to do something before release.
I know the feeling. Two of the best reasons I've seen for backup software is peanut butter (kids) and the Jack Russell Terrier (hey, look at the shiny chewtoy).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. February 2005 @ 16:06
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
20. February 2005 @ 08:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
ozzy666
Yes it means that it's been cracked. Do a backup and see if it has a watermark.
" 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/. |
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
20. February 2005 @ 09:56 |
Link to this message
|
I cant do a full back up with it because of the error, but the AVI files have not got a watermark. In anycase I have deleted the copy and got the original from one of the working links at CCE site.
As I said the original 2.50 SP I got from Emule did not have a watermark either, and was not inclusive of a patch etc. I would asume it was a hack too.
It maters not, I was simply interested in any quality difference, which question has been answered.
Tks
Ozzy
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
20. February 2005 @ 10:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
ozzy666
I didn't mean to insult you, and if I did then I'm sorry. All I was doing was answering a question, and pointing out what identified a trial version from a Pirated version.
" 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/. |
|
Gnomex
Member
|
20. February 2005 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
Ozzy666,
Now thatt you have a valid trial of CCE_SP. You can see howwell this solution works. DVD-RB ~ CCE can handle just about anything you give it. A trial by fire is the best seller for this solution.
Find a nice sized DVD-9 and go for it. Tell the group what you think.
Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors.
|
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
21. February 2005 @ 11:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles
I was not insulted, maybe my translation to english some times may seem abrupt, I dont mean it to appear so, Not many pleases and thank yous in Spanish conversations.
My point about the other trial I downloaded originaly (2.50) was just to ilustrate that it seems much of the software on Emule is already hacked. as none had the water mark, and simply said Trial.
I will try to write a little less abrupt, and maybe I can improve my english as well as learn more about these programes at the same time.
Ozzy
|
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
21. February 2005 @ 11:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
double post
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. February 2005 @ 11:57
|
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
21. February 2005 @ 11:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
double double post
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. February 2005 @ 11:56
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
21. February 2005 @ 20:25 |
Link to this message
|
Ozzy
Quote:
Hope you aren't that naive. What's to hack on a trial? For starters, if the logo water mark recorded to the video is removed from the SP Trial programming, then a functional program has essentially been stolen. Boils down to grand theft when you consider the theft is of a $2000 program.
Why you wanted to respond to my post and not the others may just be a matter of semantics. I only pointed to what jdobbs and the others were referring to. Trials without watermarks and time limits are not trials. People selling software programs don't give for free what they're trying to sell. As far as the "why" in stealing a full function app from a trial, that is obvious; as the other forum members have pointed out.
I don't know if you understood my phrasing or not. I said I hoped you were not naive enough to miss why hackers would steal the apps. The implication was that you would only be naive if you didn't understand what there was to steal from a trial. The other members appear to have made you aware of what there is to hack and that hacking is constantly going on.
Quote:
PPS: Im sure that the trials do not have and can not be changed to the full fuctionality of the SP programs, hence whats the point and whats to hack. Nieve NO practical YES!
Hopefully you've come to see that statement isn't correct. Even the dongle protected SP programs have been hacked. Trials of most popular programs have been hacked. Most savvy internet users are aware of this. Also, they are aware of the fact that they can get their PC badly infected from hacked programs and viruses from the sites that deal in them. Also, there are severe penalties for software theft in many countries.
Quote:
PPPS: Grand theft is an american demestic law' and has no relivence in International-internet-copyright-property-law.
Grand theft may be an American term, but the reality exists in most courts, they differentiate between petty theft and that of valuable items. This would be applicable in most international civil courts where a company could sue an individual for damages or where a prosecutor is prosecuting a felon in criminal court. I don't need a lesson in international law. Most civilized countries have similar laws, they're just not worded the same. And of course they don't have all the same little laws.
I'm sure the Spanish courts would deal differently with a juvenile who stole an apple in the market than with a bank robber who stole thousands of dollars.
As far as the Millenium Copyright Act, there is something of an international agreement with the EU on copyright infringement. Those particualar laws don't get into value of the theft, only that a protected item was tampered with. According to the wording, it is just as criminal to alter a cheap app as an expensive one. The programs you had without the watermarks that started as trials were hacked programs. Now that you understand those trials without watermarks weren't legal, I noticed you deleted them. Glad to see you did the honest thing.
Sophocles
I didn't quite understand your earlier statement. I thought you realized that programers rewrite trials so the water mark won't be recorded. I wasn't referring to removing it once it was recorded.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. February 2005 @ 21:06
|
|
sox2k4
Junior Member
|
22. February 2005 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
just bought CCE Basic last week....
by far the best $58 i have ever spent on software. the results are amazing.
Athlon 64 3000+ @ 1.79ghz - Compaq notebook
512mb ddr-sdram (pc2700)
100gb Seagate internal (5400rpm)
160gb AcomData external (7200rpm)
Plextor PX-716UF burner
19" Dell Ultra Sharp 1905fp flat panel
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
22. February 2005 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
sox2k4
There's a decided advantage in favor of encoding over transcoding and you've just experienced it.
" 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/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
22. February 2005 @ 13:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's the difference? ;)
|
|
sox2k4
Junior Member
|
22. February 2005 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
ya know i searched this forum and the web prior to delving into the CCE/Reebuilder arena asking the exact same question - what is the difference? many swear that there is no difference, but they are kidding themselves. EVEN when there isn't that much encoding to be done i could tell a difference. the quality is highly evident on my 30" widescreen tv. i will never ever transcode again.....
although i will admit that the time factor is a bit of a barrier that you have to take into consideration, especially if you don't have a decent computer. you can see my specs below - it takes my computer about 3 1/2 to 4 hours doing 3 passes.
Athlon 64 3000+ @ 1.79ghz - Compaq notebook
512mb ddr-sdram (pc2700)
100gb Seagate internal (5400rpm)
160gb AcomData external (7200rpm)
Plextor PX-716UF burner
19" Dell Ultra Sharp 1905fp flat panel
|
|
Gnomex
Member
|
22. February 2005 @ 15:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
It looks like another convert to the DVD-RB ranks.
@sox2k4
The time factor is steep (3-4 1/2 hours per movie) However, a lot of the users here let DVD-RB ~ CCE run when the PC is not in demand (overnight ~ at work). A few in the group use batch encoding to process several movies at once. This is if you have the HD space.
Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
22. February 2005 @ 15:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Something sounds fishy. 3 passes with CCE Basic. The time for 3 passes sounds about right, but the app looks all wrong. 2 + 1, the extra pass equals about $1900 more. I would have invested in a newer PC. Could this be some more of those trials without watermarks?
sox2k4
Except at higher compression, good transcoders such as DVDCopy3 deliver quality as good as RB/CCE. The comparative quality is excellent, at least as viewed on my 60 inch tv. It is at the higher compression levels that the CCE encoder does a better job than the transcoder apps. You'll find that many users of RB/CCE use transcoders for smaller tasks and reserve the RB/CCE for situations where they want quality under higher compression.
|
|
sox2k4
Junior Member
|
22. February 2005 @ 16:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
well i am not one to argue with brobear, so i am just offering up what i have gone through recently.
i paid $58 for CCE Basic (i can show you my receipt and you can contact Visible Light to verify) - don't ever question my ethics. my version, for whatever reason, offers under the CCE Options/ Advanced (Expert) Setting the choice of VBR_Passes of 1 thru 10. i can offer up a screenshot to anyone who questions that.
i own DVDCopy 3 as well. its not bad, but its not the same IMHO.
Athlon 64 3000+ @ 1.79ghz - Compaq notebook
512mb ddr-sdram (pc2700)
100gb Seagate internal (5400rpm)
160gb AcomData external (7200rpm)
Plextor PX-716UF burner
19" Dell Ultra Sharp 1905fp flat panel
|
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
22. February 2005 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Removed!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. February 2005 @ 13:19
|
|
ozzy666
Junior Member
|
22. February 2005 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Question my freind, he questions!!,
Only fear if you have no answer.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
22. February 2005 @ 18:30 |
Link to this message
|
ozzy666
You confound me with your verbosity. For someone who feigns a slight problem with the language, you do quite a job. LOL
As far as grand theft I only used it to point to theft greater than petty theft. Not to start a legal argument.
If you notice in this country, there are legal suits going on where people who have illegally gotten files from the internet are being fined in court. They are getting into trouble as much for theft as breaking the copyright laws (and what are copyright laws if not anti-theft legislation). Friends from the UK have told me of similar circumstances there. I never meant for the subject to get so far off topic of the thread. We agree it is illegal, so we're just playing with words if we carry that dialogue further.
Glad to hear you're an honest soul. But getting back to the 2.70 SP trial. It was made to function more like the actual program. But, it did have the watermark. So, it would take a programmer to hack the app to remove the marking function. There are people out there doing it all the time. I guess I should have just put emphasis on what pertains to this thread.
Quote:
PPS: Im sure that the trials do not have and can not be changed to the full fuctionality of the SP programs, hence whats the point and whats to hack. Nieve NO practical YES!
I guess you ended up missing the point. They DO hack these programs and as far as the use with RB, if the watermark is missing from the 2.70 SP trial, it may as well be full function. You should have been a bit less sure of that statement.
I can also see why jdobbs would be reluctant to help someone who is using illegally gained software. As a developer it would probably boil down to matter of principle. I doubt he would appreciate anyone messing with his work.
The "Works" version is a pirated program. So, if one uses it, they are involved in piracy. That goes for any trial where the mark or a time limit has been removed.
So, in the end Ozzy, I guess you did miss the point. The apps can be hacked and as I stated, as far as RB is concerned, that gives the trial full function.
|
