Specific options in x264 help

[TheResidentEvil]

I encode a lot of football games from HD to DVD size. I use VBR at about 4500 - 5000 bitrate for ~ 2 hour games. These are the settings I have added to handbrake specifically as advanced options

subme = 9
me = umh
weightb
bpyramid
ref = 5
bframes = 3
mixed_ref = 1
trellis = 2
no-past-pskip = 1
bime

Considering these
8x8dct
merange = 24

my encode time keeps going up because I keep adding higher options. I used to use subme 6 but changed that. Which of these options are more important than the others for my content? My encode time is high right now so i think if i add the bottom two it is going to be just too long. Which of these options are adding the most time to my encode? Also if any of them are just too much and not necesary or too high I would like to hear it. Any help is appreciated.

[rhpsmusic]

trellis = 2
Of what you have listed, I believe this has the most effect on encoding time. Try trellis=1 and see how much quicker it is.

[nurbs]

Unless handbrake uses an incredibly outdated version of x264 from before the presets and mb-tree were introduced weightb, mixed_ref = 1, bframes = 3 and 8x8dct are on by default. --bime has been on for subme > 5 by default for a year now and isn't available as an explicit option.

[J_Darnley]

Absolutely use 8x8dct. It is one of the best features and it has a negligible speed effect. If you want a faster encode, definitely let x264 use fast P-skip. This has almost no effect on quality (which is why it is only disabled when using placebo). Setting trellis=2 is also quite slow, drop it to 1 as rhpsmusic suggested. You can also drop ref to 4.

[EDIT] nurbs does have a point. Using a newer version of x264 will get you more quality and also some more speed.

[TheResidentEvil]

unfortunately handbrake .93 does not turn on mixed_ref or 8x8dct because I have checked my files with mediainfo and those options were not set until I forced them on myself. I do believe bime is on but i just put it to be sure anyway. I read fast p skip helps with solids like blue skies and since its on a field, i think i need to leave that on. Grass field can look really bad. Will it help or not really?

[nurbs]

I'd be interested what x264 revision handbrake uses. Does mediainfo show you a line like this:Writing library : x264 core 76 r1271 496d79d

[TheResidentEvil]

yes, here is one I did last night

Writing library : x264 core 65

The developer snapshot has this "x264 to r1271" I am just wearing of not final releases

[AnonCrow]

Changing merange from default 16 to 24 would certainly increase encoding time.
Try dropping subme and me back to defaults (7 and hex) and check for any unacceptable drops in quality like smearing of the ball.
With such a high target bitrate, even a lower subme might produce decent results.
What resolution are you decoding into, standard PAL/NTSC DVD ? Encoding them anamorphically 480x576|480 would significantly decrease encoding time. Decreasing frame rate really isn't an option when encoding football.

[nurbs]

You should maybe try the snapshot and see how it works. I'm too lazy to look up when exactly the core version was 65, but google tells me it was about 150 revisions ago. You might gain more quality by switching to the current version than by using slower settings. The defaults in the current x264 are also better balanced.
Anyway I'd definitly turn 8x8dct on. From the 2 options you are considering this should give you a way better quality/speed tradeoff.

[Dark Shikari]

There's a Handbrake SVN snapshot for a reason.

The ancient 0.9.3 version is old and crap. Don't use it.

[burfadel]

x264 never has and never will have final releases. The latest build IS the official release! (and always will be for future x264 updates).

I take it you mean the encodes are 1920x1080, and you encode them so a 2hr game fits on a DVD? The newer builds are certainly faster!

Consider the monitor you will be watching the encode on. In reality, football of any code whether it be afl, soccer, rugby league/union, gridiron etc aren't high detail dependent. Moreover, unless you have a TrueHD tv (most tv's people think are full 1920x1080 aren't, they just take the 1920x1080 input stream and down-sample it), it is kind of pointless... most computer screen aren't that high of a resolution either :)

By resampling to a lower resolution (albeit still higher than standard tv), and using half the bandwidth, with some higher options will have two effects; the first is encoding speed will be noticeably faster and the second is that you could fit two games per disc with no noticeable decrease in quality.

Using a later version of x264, try using subme 10, optimal b-frame search aka --b-adapt 2 (more effective b-frame use at the cost of some speed, although at 3 b-frame the difference is very little), --aq-mode 2 (auto-variance AQ). Don't know whether --no-fast-pskip will give you any benefit except for a slightly slower encode time... Considering using the correct (latest) version of x264, coupled with the lower resolution and bitrate and no discernible quality loss, even with using the above settings I suggest you will still experience a decrease in encoding duration.