Screenshots - HC 016 FINAL (impressive!)

[UncasMS]

congrats Hank315 to THIS release!


i am deeply impressed by the speed and most importantly the output quality!!

:Woo_Hoo: :Woo_Hoo: :Woo_Hoo: :Woo_Hoo:



i encoded my favourite testmovie again - van helsing - 126 min main movie + ~35min extras

bitrate: HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 2.975/600/2.236 Kbs

HC 016 final was used with dvdrebuilder 1.03 pro in OPV mode

- encoding (no preparation, no rebuilding) time was 116min
- matrix: encoder defaults
- idct: skal
- size: 4.518.234 (or 4.626.671.616 byte)

former tests can be found here:
1) http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=54679
2) http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=54761



1.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5179/2044hc016f8vm.jpg

2.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5461/6187hc016f4aw.jpg

3.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6262/15030hc016f5dh.jpg

4.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/1934/59037hc016f3nr.jpg

5.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/359/30488hc016f9hs.jpg

6.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/7982/55405hc016f4ii.jpg


compared to all former versions of HC ENC this one looks best:

- less macroblocks
- less noise

- great level of details

the encoding speed in OPV mode was faster than hc 016 testrelease 3 and a little slower than hc testrelease 2

FINAL: 116 min
TR-3: 130 min
TR-2: 111 min


the output size in OPV mode was much better than in TR-2 and almost identical to TR-3

FINAL: 4.518.234 mb
TR-3: 4.517.136 mb
TR-2: 4.440.598 mb

for an OPV mode i'm more than impressed with the size, speed and quality and i'm looking forward to run a test with normal 2pass mode


the encoding times of the other tests i have linked to were:

- cce 270 3pass: 183 min
- procoder: 237 min
- shrink + aec (incl. rebuilding of course): 108 min

[blutach]

That is phenomenal quality for a freebie - for an anybee!!

Really, it is top class. HC certainly is fantastic for low BR stuff. I presume you did it in "best mode"

Regards

[UncasMS]

yes i did - to get the best out of it

it is not only impressive for freeware but take a look at the average bitrate: 2236kbps and consider the fact that OPV mode was used

i guess i'll need to see how cce can cope in OPV mode - i know cce will take only ~64min in opv mode (c.f. my idct tests (http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=55813)) but i didnt compare the quality yet

[blutach]

I noticed. Looks almost 1Mb higher! Not a block in sight.

Regards

[jeo]

UncasMS
you had good taste to show us pictures with fire.
IMHO,scenes with fire and/or water always have some blocks and are hard to encode.
very impressive,thank you!

[UncasMS]

compared to cce and procoder the very first picture is inferior but the others are as good to slightly better to much better

[blutach]

#2 and #5 would be the benchmarks and they are superb. Just a hint of blocking in the woman's face in #2 but hardly that you'd notice.

Regards

[nwg]

Excellent news. :)

Is the OPV function part of the pro edition as I only use the freeware one?

I have been using it for a while now and use it over CCE. The beta 2 version takes a while so I have to run it overnight. It takes an average 6-8 hours just for the encoding using the default normal setting.

[cynthia]

Curious

This version - is it right that the title in the program still shows 0.16 beta? Thought I downloaded the right version.

[nwg]

Curious

This version - is it right that the title in the program still shows 0.16 beta? Thought I downloaded the right version.

I just noticed it as well.

This is the link I used.

http://hank315.dyndns.org/HCbatch_016.zip

[UncasMS]

no it doesnt say BETA anymore:

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/145/hc016final8cc.png

nwg's link is the one i used and posted here:
http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=316989&postcount=29


the freeware version does NOT support OPV mode for hc btw

[cynthia]

no it doesnt say BETA anymore:

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/145/hc016final8cc.pngIn some way true that it not says BETA - but it says beta... :P

[hank315]

Well, BETA or beta, it is the last release :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[UncasMS]

ouch - you caught me

stupid me

i was looking for the *testrelease* note and talked about beta - sorry

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/5110/016tr35tq.png

[UncasMS]

hi hank,

whatever you called it it is awesome!

[ElBoricua433]

you mean beta or not beta, right Hank?

[blutach]

To beta or not to beta, that is the question :rotfl:

Regards

[UncasMS]

whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outragous postings
or to take arms against this sea of madness
and by ignoring end them?

[blutach]

:rotfl:

[cynthia]

Perhaps we should start a poetry forum... :P

[jeo]

oh my. i was waiting news screenshots....
i can't quote the last 4 posts,then......:rotfl:

[UncasMS]

oh my. i was waiting news screenshots....
i can't quote the last 4 posts,then......:rotfl:


ok, back to business it is then :rolleyes:


here are the screenshots from cce 270 opv mode:


1.
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/2044_cce_opv.jpg


2.
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/8036_cce_opv.jpg


3.
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/16879_cce_opv.jpg


4.
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/60633_cce_opv.jpg


5.
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/32337_cce_opv.jpg


6.
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/57001_cce_opv.jpg



in picture number one cce is my winner, 2 clearly goes to hc, 3 is on even terms, 4 looks slightly better with cce for me, in picture number 5 i prefer the hc output again, same goes for screenshot 6

so all in all there is hardly any difference in the opv mode results

the quality of both encoders is very good and thus we have two winners and not a winner and a runner-up

still hc is a clear winner to me as this encoder is freeware and has improved very much over the last couple of month


so a big :thanks2: to hank315 and keep up the good work :toast:

[jeo]

in picture number one cce is my winner, 2 clearly goes to hc, 3 is on even terms, 4 looks slightly better with cce for me and in picture number 5 i prefer the hc output again.

1) cce have more noises(crisps?...shiver)HC is better
2) cce (shivers in everywhere) HC is better
3) HC is better (look the wall and general details)
4) doubts.HC is better here cce is better there.(single differents details in the ring,face,hair and cloth)
5) HC win
6) HC win with big details

opening pictures side by side (a new page for each) is better to compare(personal taste):

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5179/2044hc016f8vm.jpg
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/2044_cce_opv.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5461/6187hc016f4aw.jpg
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/8036_cce_opv.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6262/15030hc016f5dh.jpg
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/16879_cce_opv.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/1934/59037hc016f3nr.jpg
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/60633_cce_opv.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/359/30488hc016f9hs.jpg
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/32337_cce_opv.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/7982/55405hc016f4ii.jpg
http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/57001_cce_opv.jpg

so a big :thanks2: to hank315 and keep up the good work :toast:

big :thanks2: for you too!

[nwg]

I can see some difference between those stills. I do think HC does look better. The CCE version looks a bit more grainy in the background.

For freeware, HC is fantastic and although I like CCE, and have been using it for a couple of years. I have been using HC more and more lately.

I also like the suspend button. It is a lot easier to pause the encoding than with CCE. With CCE, the whole operation has to be aborted and start where is left off. A couple of times I have pressed the wrong button and have lost four hours plus of encoding time as it has started from beginning again.

[UncasMS]

A couple of times I have pressed the wrong button and have lost four hours plus of encoding time as it has started from beginning again.

you didnt use rebuilder then, did you?

because rebuilder will start from the last successfully encoded segment
in other words you can abort a process any time with any encoder and resume any time

[linx05]

Maybe he had it in One Click Mode?

[UncasMS]

if rb was used then that must have been the case for the RESUMING as only three-click will let you press ENCODE in order to start with the next segment in the rebuilder queue

[nwg]

you didnt use rebuilder then, did you?

because rebuilder will start from the last successfully encoded segment
in other words you can abort a process any time with any encoder and resume any time

Yes I did.

It does resume normally but, that time it deleted all the files and started again.

[elizerrojas]

what is the deal with HC016, why wouldn't it install, i try to install it and all it does is to open up. whenever i click on the HC 015 zipfolder, it install, what's the problem with this one?

[nwg]

what is the deal with HC016, why wouldn't it install, i try to install it and all it does is to open up. whenever i click on the HC 015 zipfolder, it install, what's the problem with this one?


There is nothing to install. There is just the exe file and it requires software such as DVD Rebuilder to feed it AVS files. It then encodes using these AVS files as reference.

It cannot run on its own.

[elizerrojas]

so all i have to do is to download it into the RB folder, no installing or extracting like HC15?

[UncasMS]

rename the old 015exe to something different than *hcbatch.exe* because that is what the new exe will have to be named to

then copy the 016 exe into the hc encoder folder and rename it to *hcbatch.exe*

[elizerrojas]

ok. thanks

[nwg]

I only have the freeware version. To get HC working, I have to use the setup option where Quenc normally goes. I then select Quenc as the encoder but it starts HC.

It sounds like it is different for the VIP version.

[elizerrojas]

i have never done the whole exe and name or rename stuff, don't now how either. with HC 15 all i always did was to intall it in the rebuilder forder, that's it, no problem. i'm going to have to use the 15.

[elizerrojas]

why is 016 different. why can't i just download the file, intall it into the RB-pro as i do with 015?

[UncasMS]

pls elizerrojas

either learn some basic filemanagement or stay away from hc 016f

it is NOT asked too much to rename a file - i have told you what the exact file name will have to be

if this seems to difficult for you - fine
...but spare us complaints about THIS 016 release!

hank315 is working on a gui version and there is way more important work to do than creating an installer which 99.99% of us dont need

jdobbs will surely use this 016 final with the next installerversion for rebuilder but for the time being there is absolutely nothing else to do than copying this new file to the encoder subfolder and rename it or copy it to any other goddamn place and directing the rebuilder setup to the new path/exe file

if these basic steps seem too difficult to you than this is not a tool for you - eot

[ElBoricua433]

wow, Uncasms just spoked vulgar