Alt cc and short videos - any point?

This is a general question which I've always been curious about but still can't determine with testing, so maybe someone else could shed light on this. How significant will the effects of an Alt CC be with something that is only, say, 3 minutes long? I understand the theory behind the alt cc but in terms of agression exactly how fast is fast? Is it the kind of thing that only really benefits full movies interspersed with long scenes. What I encode the most is music videos, which often have lots of fast scenes but ocassionally have a mix of fast and slow cuts. However, a "slow" cut in a music video isn't anything like a long scene in a movie - a slow cut in a music video lasts about 5 to 10 seconds, a fast cut can be a couple of frames. I've been encoding with different methods for a while but it's often difficult to tell just by seeing the results. So, does anyone familiar with the code know whether alt cc settings are beneficial *in theory* with short videos or are the videos too short to show any effect?

That's great if you are doing what you are doing.... but I'm not. All my videos are designed for online distribution so I need to squeeze as much out of a codec as I possibly can in order to keep my filesizes small enough so they can be hosted but still maintain excellent quality. I try to aim for 70% first pass but I dont think anyone would download a 110mb 4 min video because thats how big some of them can be with cq 2. Lots of effects = lots of bits. So I have to use 2 pass, which is why I'm curious about the two bitrate compression philosophies.

Well, i mostly test by encoding a trailer (little over 2 minute video). If you read the thread about koepi's stats reader, the latest experiments are that you should encode using default cc at high/low 0%, and not use HME. Let the codec decide the curve compression for its own. With this method your encodes will have lower quantizers all around. By using alt cc and messing with it, you will probably be able to lower average quantizer, but end up with some high absolute quantizers (at least in my testings is what happens), and according to koepi, who knows about this things much more than we, this is bad (see that thread to understand why).

I still get the feeling no one gets my point:( :( :( ... If you are not constrained by filesize why use 2 passes? I just don't understand. Of course you are not going to encode them at cq2. Ever tried cq3 or cq4? It's quick, give it a try!!! Or are you thinking "Now I'm going to encode a Depeche Mode video, I'll use 20 MB, next I'm going to encode a Rammstein video I'll use 20 MB." It doesn't make any sense! You could end up with the first at average QT 2.5 while the second at average QT 4.5 and thus completely different qualities. You want small? Use bigger quantizers like 3 or 4. Use 1 pass quality 40% or 50% or 60%. Isn't that the whole idea?

Or you can use linear scaling by putting in the default cc high/low : 0/0 MoonWalker