PDA

View Full Version : I need a faster encoder.....


Rickkins
16th May 2005, 14:48
...cuz this is nutz.

It takes me 9 hrs. to encode a 90 min. capture using agk.
There must be other programs that do the job quickly and easily..??


System specs and other details.

2500+ barton
768 ddr ram 333
GA-7VT600-P-L VIA KT600 chipset
80g wd 7200
40g maxtor 7200

Capping from tv using el cheapo asus tv-tuner card
Capping with Virtual vcr using PIC video mjpeg

Windows xp pro sp1

iNFO-DVD
16th May 2005, 17:08
That seems awfully long for your spec....

What resolution is your source avi? (so I can test this end)

Also, what are you trying to convert to? (size, spec, audio e.t.c.)

Rickkins
16th May 2005, 17:12
Source cap is 640-480.

iNFO-DVD
16th May 2005, 17:22
What are you trying to convert to?

size? audio?

Rickkins
16th May 2005, 18:02
xvid, via agk...standard settings, trying to get 1 1400 meg file.

lark
16th May 2005, 20:03
are you using both of your HDs?
and do you have DMA enabled?

still 9h... is the CPU really 100% utilized for 9h?

regards
t :)

Rickkins
16th May 2005, 21:16
Yup...reading from one, writing to the other.
Dma enabled.

tigerman8u
16th May 2005, 22:09
Something not right. I get almost a 1:1 encode on my P4 1.7. Are you using alot of filters ?

Rickkins
16th May 2005, 22:15
Not using any filters.
Note that my avi caps are in the 17+ gig range, as I'm using a lossless
codec to capture(picvideo mjpeg)

Sergei_Esenin
16th May 2005, 23:35
Originally posted by Rickkins
Not using any filters.
Note that my avi caps are in the 17+ gig range, as I'm using a lossless
codec to capture(picvideo mjpeg)

MJPEG is actually a "slightly lossy" codec, but visually close to lossless. But I digress. :D Have you tried encoding directly with XviD using Virtualdub, not using AGK? And, if it is an analogue capture you really would be better off using Avisynth filters...

When I first started capping and encoding a couple years ago, I too wanted the "easy answer" of using all-in-one packages like AGK. But I had no idea what they were doing, so if an encode didn't come out perfectly, I didn't really know how to tweak it. And if a capture had noise or a DVD had too much grain or artifacts from a bad transfer, I didn't know how to filter it out while preserving details.

Learning all the manual options for useful Avisynth filters and for codecs like XviD was time-consuming but made my encodes an order of magnitude better, and today I clean and encode everything from VHS and laserdiscs to analogue and digital cable and HDTV. And it all looks much better because I do it semi-manually and know what to tweak.

It's just something to consider...:)

Rickkins
16th May 2005, 23:36
For example....today...


5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] AutoGK 2.08b
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] OS: WinXP (5.1.2600).2
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Job started.
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Input file: tvcap.avi
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Input codec: MJPEG
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Source duration: 1h 40mn 15s 876ms
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Output file: D:\tvcap_agk.avi
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Output codec: XviD
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Audio1: 1536 Kbps PCM 2ch
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Subtitles: none
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Format: .AVI
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Target size: 1400Mb
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Custom audio settings: CBR MP3 with bitrate: 192Kbps
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Started encoding.
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Source resolution: 720x480
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Source fps: 29.971
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Analyzing source.
[5/16/2005 3:15:19 PM] Source is considered to be FILM.
[5/16/2005 3:15:19 PM] Output will contain 144241 frames
[5/16/2005 3:15:19 PM] Demuxing audio.
[5/16/2005 3:26:53 PM] Normalizing audio.
[5/16/2005 3:27:30 PM] Encoding audio.
[5/16/2005 3:37:40 PM] Audio1 size: 144,383,040 bytes (137.69 Mb)
[5/16/2005 3:37:40 PM] Overhead: 1,712,896 bytes (1.63 Mb)
[5/16/2005 3:37:40 PM] Video size: 1,321,910,464 bytes (1260.67 Mb)
[5/16/2005 3:37:40 PM] Running compressibility test.
[5/16/2005 3:52:39 PM] Duration was: 14 minutes 58 seconds
[5/16/2005 3:52:39 PM] Speed was: 8.03 fps.
[5/16/2005 3:52:39 PM] Compressibility percentage is: 71.09
[5/16/2005 3:52:39 PM] Chosen resolution is: 704x480 ( AR: 1.47 )
[5/16/2005 3:52:39 PM] Predicted comptest value is: 71.09
[5/16/2005 3:52:39 PM] Running first pass.
[5/16/2005 6:03:59 PM] Duration was: 2 hours 11 minutes 19 seconds
[5/16/2005 6:03:59 PM] Speed was: 18.30 fps.
[5/16/2005 6:04:00 PM] Expected quality of first pass size: 73.93
[5/16/2005 6:04:00 PM] Running second pass.

And of course...it has not yet finished, as of 6:30, 16% of second pass is done.

Meat_PoPsiclez
17th May 2005, 00:21
I'm not familiar with agk, but xvid encoding is VASTLY flexible depending on the quality settings you select. Turning off vhq, gmc, quater-pel, chroma motion, turning down the motion search precision and vhq mode all can make a huge difference.

Doing a two pass on my Barton 2500 with 1GB of pc2700 (dual channel) nforce2 chipset w.d. sata harddrive with all the afformention quality enhancing functions on, vhq 4, motion search 6, for 2hours of 23.97fps 720x400 into a 1400MB file with ac3 audio (~1144kbit/s video average) content it takes 30+ hours to encode, but the results are pristine, as in so pristine that it commonly shows artifacts from the original mpeg2 sources.

Note: that was done with an earlier build of xvid, I understand the newer builds are somewhat faster during encoding.

I just tested with everything down and off on a 608x256 clip, I can encode faster than realtime (27fps) but you're sacrificing quality. If I went around killing processes (nevermind logging out the other fast user switching profiles in xp) I'm sure I could get that higher. Also that clip is already in xvid (transcoding) so I'm eating a decent amound of cpu just decoding, something that wouldn't be nearly so much a problem coming from mpeg2 or mjpeg (or better yet, a raw yuv format). If it were coming right off a cap card in a yuv format, and the computer wasn't being used for anything else, I'm confident it would be able to encode right to xvid without any framedrops. Keep in mind, if you disable those options you'll need to up the bandwidth comparatively to having them turned on to achieve the same quality.

Rickkins
17th May 2005, 01:42
I've tried just vdubmod....couldn't get it to produce proper size files,
despite trying the tricks listed in the forum.

Blue_MiSfit
17th May 2005, 01:57
There is something wrong with your system. AGK is not slow. It's just a frontend for Vdub/Xvid etc. I had a similar system (2500+, nforce2, 512mb ddr333, 2 ide hdd's), and I could do a 90 min encode (with 2 passes) in like 4-5 hours.

My advice (if you're sure your hardware is setup correctly): Reformat :)

-Misfit

Rickkins
17th May 2005, 02:26
Here's the remainder of agk's log from before...

[5/16/2005 6:04:00 PM] Running second pass.
[5/16/2005 9:11:35 PM] Duration was: 3 hours 7 minutes 34 seconds
[5/16/2005 9:11:35 PM] Speed was: 12.82 fps.
[5/16/2005 9:11:35 PM] Splitting video into: D:\closer_agk.cd1.avi
[5/16/2005 9:12:38 PM] Splitting video into: D:\closer_agk.cd2.avi
[5/16/2005 9:13:36 PM] Job finished. Total time: 9 hours 28 minutes 2 seconds
====================================================

buzzqw
17th May 2005, 07:13
look at this

[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Analyzing source.
[5/16/2005 3:15:19 PM] Source is considered to be FILM.
[5/16/2005 3:15:19 PM] Output will contain 144241 frames

near 4 hour for analyzing..., i think Len0x must tune this pass...
all other time are in line with your pc spec

BHH

manono
17th May 2005, 10:05
Good find, buzzqw-

I don't know how it is for captures, but that analyze step is ordinarily quite fast for DVD sources. Are you sure, Rickkins, that some timed program, such as a Virus Scan, didn't come on at noon and slow everything down to a crawl? Or has this been happening on every AutoGK encode, no matter what the time of day? But it does seem that the analyze step is the bottleneck. You might bring up the problem in the AutoGK Development Forum, and save a few logs to post if analyzing the source takes that long for everything you do.

You might at some point do a DVD encode with AutoGK to prove to yourself that it's not always that slow. Of course, the high resolutions you use do take much longer than if you were to encode to lower resolutions.

Rickkins
17th May 2005, 11:51
Yup...I am certain. I never schedule anything, and this happens all the
time.
I did notice the film thing. No idea what to make of that.

Axed
17th May 2005, 12:10
Its the PicVideo Directshow Decoder. For some funky reason, on my friends Pentium 4 2.8 it cant play in realtime. Try turning off the advanced deblocking for starters. Also, to test if this is the problem make an avs file with the following:

avisource("capture file.avi")


And see if you can atucally play the avs file in realtime. The best solution if this is the problem, is to install FFDshow, and use DirectShowSource instead of AVISource.

Rickkins
19th May 2005, 13:31
I managed to get it down to 5 hrs., using tmpenc express.
I gotta do each pass manually though. (mind you, there may be a way to
automate it, but I've not figured that out yet.)

Hey...a four hour saving makes a lot of difference.

Prettz
24th May 2005, 07:09
I have virtually the EXACT same hardware as you (only difference is I used to have 512MB RAM and now have 1GB, no difference in framerate between the two, though), and I've never seen Xvid encodes go below 2 fps. And this is even with a 640x368 video with all VHQ and other quality settings enabled and a very long, very slow avisynth script. The last time I ran any encodes I was also running XP Pro SP1.

Even back when I had 512MB RAM, I could listen to winamp and web browse without affecting VirtualDubMod's estimated job time by more than a couple minutes.

You've either got some hidden program or service consuming all of your CPU cycles, or you have something that's using ungodly amounts of your RAM and forcing all of your AGK stuff out of the cache and/or onto the page file. Or you might have some hardware settings or drivers screwed up (you have Indexing Service completely disabled, right? ;)).

Try running your encode and bringing up Task Manager. Go to the View -> Select Columns... menu item and enable all of the columns. Then, while your encode is running, watch all the important columns for all the running processes and see if there are any processes that are using way more than any of the others. Ideally whatever program you have doing your encode should be getting at least 95% of your CPU time.

Edit: Oops, looks like someone may have already solved your problem...

gnr
24th May 2005, 22:56
something wrong with ur pc.....disable network before encoding and check the task manage if theres any process using cpu for more than 10% press end task and turn off ur antivirus during encoding too....

iNFO-DVD
24th May 2005, 22:59
@Rickkins:

Thanks for the Private Message/Link to AVI clip. I am puzzled over a few things, first off, you mention here (your script) your captures are:
[SOURCE AVI]
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Source resolution: 720x480
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Source fps: 29.971
[5/16/2005 11:45:34 AM] Analyzing source.
[5/16/2005 3:15:19 PM] Source is considered to be FILM.

[YOUR CLIP I DOWNLOADED]
[24/05/2005 21:52:40] Source resolution: 640x480
[24/05/2005 21:52:40] Source fps: 29.971
[24/05/2005 21:52:40] Analyzing source.
[24/05/2005 21:53:06] Source has percentage of interlacing in motion areas: 0.00
[24/05/2005 21:53:06] Source has percentage of telecined patterns: 0.00
[24/05/2005 21:53:06] Source has percentage of progressive patterns: 0.00
[24/05/2005 21:53:06] Source has percentage of interlaced patterns: 0.00
[24/05/2005 21:53:06] Source is considered to be progressive.

I'm hoping you or anyone who reads this can answer a couple of queries I have:
Is that 1st log extract correct or has something messed up? It's acting as if it's an MPEG2 file, basically, detecting 3:2 and telling us it's really film...... this is an AVI remember... Is that possible? Telecine doesn't get applied to avi captures does it? and if it doesn't why does AutoGK pick it up?

I must admit, I've never used captures ever.

The log from your clip looks much like what I'd expect from an AVI. Though I do need to ask....
Would you normally just convert that clip to XVID/DIVX using whatever application to 640x480 as it is? The interlaced artifacts that are present look 'yucky'.. ;) The AVI is now progressive. Is there anyway to process it before it's saved? Is this normal for AVI captures? The clip is the same as if you'd made an AVI conversion of an Interlaced Source but not de-interlaced thus been encoded with all the yucky weave lines.

The de-interlace filter in vDub made it look tons better, what is it you usually do or do you just leave it as it is? (apart from the video/audio conversion)

Rickkins
25th May 2005, 13:51
Damn...yanno something, I had been 'playing' with the settings to see
what I could do to increase my speed...and I forgot to change them back
before I made that cap for you. Normally I cap at 720-480.
Ntsc is interlaced, thus the cap should be interlaced.
I've made another short cap...and put in in the same place as yesterday.
I've re-adjusted my setting back to the ones I normally use when I cap.
These settings give me excellent results when I convert to a standard
DVD.

Thanks.