HC16 slower than HC15?

[Lownox]

Has anybody had the problem of HC16 being slower than HC15. I noticed with HC15 it was taking 4 to 5 minutes per pass and HC16 was taking 7 to 8 minutes per pass. Both were in the "best" settings in DVD-RB RC5.1. Is this a problem with my system/settings? I haven't had the problem of HC16 locking up while minimised though.

[UncasMS]

i have only done one full length conversion with BOTH versions and hc 016 was slightly faster

015 took 220 min for the encoding part, 016 217 min

are you definitely using the very same source material?

[Lownox]

Yes, I used Crash as my source material and didn't change anything in DVD-RB. I do have both .exe's in the same folder (I did change the path for HC in DVD-RB). Should I put them in different folders?

[UncasMS]

i usually rename the exe files and keep them all in the encoder directory

++++++++++++

i now realize that the times i stated referred to the hc 016 test release, that hank315 sent me

that version was different to the one, that was made publically availbale later on

thus i cannot be 100% sure that the 016 you used might indeed be a little different in terms of speed though i cannot believe the difference was more than a couple of minutes for the whole title, whereas you said you noticed a speed difference for single segments already

this would make a massive speed difference and i wouldnt want to believe that

... of course i do believe you.....but still i keep asking myself if something may have been different

running different background tasks, using the pc one time when the other conversion may have been done without other user interference

[Lownox]

THe HC16 I had was the one named ...08-09-2005.zip. Is there a later version? I will run the movie through again and see what I come up with. Thanks for the help. Could have been something on my system. I'll clean it up (defrag etc.) and see what happens. Let you know something tomorrow.

[cynthia]

I never noticed any difference. Such as huge time difference you noticed - should on my system more or less double my backup times.

I'll do a test.

[elizerrojas]

i use HC15 with great sucess, it has a excellent quality output so, i will continue to use until i'm sure that the 16 is better.

thanks hank, djobbs for giving us best softwares. and thanks to poeple like uncasMS, cynthia and others for testing them and howing us how to use them.

[Lownox]

I'll try to do some testing myself tonight. May not be able to get to it but I will find the time in the next couple of days. Until then like elizerrojas said I still have the best encoder out to use in HC15. Thanks guys & gals!

[cynthia]

Did a test.

• 08:17 - Ver 0.15A
• 08:09 - Ver 0.16beta

I only did/watched the first pass - the other one is hard to spot because it shuts down at the same time.

[Lownox]

@Cynthia.So what your saying is HC16 is 8 sec. faster on the pass that you watched.

[cynthia]

Yes, I did the Aviator yesterday with that Howard Hughes guy and it was a very long movie that would have required to much shrinking in DVD Shrink.

No problems in that playback. Used the latest 016 beta with the 'best' setting used.

I'm have not yet begin to use those 'matrixes' or what they are called. Will be next step in my learning courve.

[Lownox]

cynthia thanks for your input. i also use the best setting. HC is a really good encoder. I wished I had listened to blutach and not purcased CCE Basic. Its not very reliable for low bitrate encoding. Maybe I can get some use out of it when I start encoding my home movies. Thanks agian for the info.

[hank315]

Just a warning, the latest HC016 test release has an error which could cause artifacts on some decoders, better not use it for now.
A new release will be out very soon.

About the speed issue, HC016 should run a little faster.
I see the same speed differences as Cynthia reported.

[UncasMS]

good to see you check by every now and then, hank315, and keep us up2date

we're all looking forward to testing any new release


^_~

[hank315]

@UncasMS
Please check your mail...