Better quality, CCE or Rempeg?

Please vote as to which you think produces the best quality video, CCE or Rempeg. Thanks.

Even though I understand the relevance of this poll being put here, I can't ignore my duties as a moderator. I'm moving the poll to the encoding forum where it is a more appropriate place for it to be. Thanks.

Trilight, No probs. I prolly should have put it there in the first place.

Re-mpeg was ok when i first started re encoding cos its a doddle to use. As for quality work it out for your self ie "Lord of the rings" re encoded with re-mpeg took nearly 16 hours to get the same quality with CCE 2 1/2 hours (single pass), to get quality that is hard to tell from the origional 4 1/2 hours ( double pass ). so you tell me :) To elaborate slightly on how trilight put it CCE - kicks Ass..........Re-mpeg - Sucks Ass

@Baggervance You hit it right on! CCE = Kicks ass, Rempeg = Sucks ass. Wow, great quote! Bumble, you seeing this?!

This is like asking which is faster a Ferrari or an Escort... At least in the TMPGENC vs. CCE debate there is some room for discussion. CCE. Hands down.

The question isn't what's faster, it quality. And, I may be wrong, but I thought rempeg2 was designed to maximize quality by maintaining some MPEG2 characteristics, GOP structure, etc, instead of treating it as a raw video input stream?

On the question of visual quality only. I encoded a VOB with Rempeg (default settings) and also with CCE (guide settings) to about 75% of source. Played back BOTH at the same time, and watched on my computer monitor (you can't use a TV to qualify anything, I have a Radeon 8500 graphics card). I could not tell any difference. The source was very high quality (Liar,Liar). Does the quality of CCE show itself at lower compression percentages? i.e. 50% of source. What qualifing procedures are you using to say which program produces higher quality?? BTW, I know Rempeg screws up and produces bad distortion on about 1 out of 10 encodes. I'm just talking about when it does work.

There are a lot of variables involved. If I encoded a very simple video with little action and no hard lines even ReMPEG2 can do a good job. But try something that requires some work... like the water scenes in "Cast Away" and you will immediately see the difference in quality. Remember, the quality of the encoder can only be shown on higher demand material. Even the cheapest encoder won't create artifacts on an entirely blank screen.

? if i encode a movie with CSS can I remux the .M2V back in to the .VOB like you can with ReMpeg2, M2V file or does it do audio to. If not whats the point...................?