Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th August 2006, 19:52   #1  |  Link
Flexy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 92
x264 is so slow i want to cry

i started to encode a 108mins 1280x736 "hdtv/wmv9 video" (orig size 4.1GB) with X264 (megui, staxrip, whatever) using the "HQ-slow" setting.

I started the encode today at 4:30am....now it's 1:50pm and ETA is another hour. Makes 10+ hrs encoding time.

Geeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz

And i have a A64 running at 2618mhz 1gb ram and otherwise pretty beefed up system. I just hope the quality is worth it....ugh....

SOrry..just wanted to rant....this IS a long time
Flexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2006, 19:55   #2  |  Link
Manao
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
Well, the settings is called "HQ-slow" for a reason. I don't see why you're complaining.
__________________
Manao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2006, 19:55   #3  |  Link
Flexy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manao
Well, the settings is called "HQ-slow" for a reason. I don't see why you're complaining.
i know...thanks god i didnt use "slower" or even "slowest"
Flexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2006, 20:40   #4  |  Link
lexor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexy
i know...thanks god i didnt use "slower" or even "slowest"
you should try insane and see if it lives up to the name, call mental institution ahead of time, just in case.

wait, is it the first pass you doing now? so you got another like 18 hours of second pass to go?
__________________
Geforce GTX 260
Windows 7, 64bit, Core i7
MPC-HC, Foobar2000
lexor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2006, 22:35   #5  |  Link
Flexy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 92
well took me a little over 11hrs....shrank it from 4.1GB to 900kb and quality is OUTSTANDING
Flexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2006, 22:51   #6  |  Link
Dark Eiri
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 327
Then you did a great miracle!
You mean 900 MB right? XD
Dark Eiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 00:10   #7  |  Link
Flexy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Eiri
Then you did a great miracle!
You mean 900 MB right? XD
oups.... Must be wishful thinking on my side...
Yeah 900MB of course.
Flexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 07:03   #8  |  Link
Dark Eiri
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 327
Hopefully in a few centuries we will be able to compress like that without much loss ._.'
Dark Eiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 15:05   #9  |  Link
GmorG McRoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Eiri
Hopefully in a few centuries we will be able to compress like that without much loss ._.'
Then we will have storage space so big, so we will have lossless compression used or even no compression at all.
__________________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later.
---Mitch Hedberg
GmorG McRoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 15:22   #10  |  Link
lexor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by GmorG McRoth
Then we will have storage space so big, so we will have lossless compression used or even no compression at all.
but the storage medium will be so big and so expensive that only the 3 richest kings of Europe will be able to afford them.
__________________
Geforce GTX 260
Windows 7, 64bit, Core i7
MPC-HC, Foobar2000
lexor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 18:56   #11  |  Link
frodeste
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 70
HQ-Insane

I am running the HQ-Insane (modified to support 2 threads) on an AMD X2 processor.

1 pass was: encoded 8138 frames, 24.40 fps, 1014.40 kb/s
2 pass is now at 4,45 fps

Is this normal?
__________________
frodeste

--
http://www.stenstrom.no
frodeste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 19:42   #12  |  Link
DeeGee
Registered User
 
DeeGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 102
Yep, first pass is just to get the statistics of the video file, so it's lot faster.
DeeGee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 01:21   #13  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,175
Actually that's pretty fast for insane, for most people. You must have a high-end x2.
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 02:38   #14  |  Link
MeteorRain
紺野木綿季
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NJ; OR; Shanghai
Posts: 465
@Flexy
encoding at 1280*736 would be much slower than at 848*480 and 704*396
MeteorRain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 06:14   #15  |  Link
Flexy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeteorRain
@Flexy
encoding at 1280*736 would be much slower than at 848*480 and 704*396
yeah sure...thinking about cropping my vids..but then you might never know i might get a big wide-screen TV and then i might regret it
Flexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 07:09   #16  |  Link
check
phjbdpcrjlj2sb3h
 
check's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Eiri
Hopefully in a few centuries we will be able to compress like that without much loss ._.'
You can already! http://mattl.co.uk/mattx/codec/
check is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 09:43   #17  |  Link
n3r0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodeste
I am running the HQ-Insane (modified to support 2 threads) on an AMD X2 processor.

1 pass was: encoded 8138 frames, 24.40 fps, 1014.40 kb/s
2 pass is now at 4,45 fps

Is this normal?
and what's the source, resolution?
i'm trying to convert 1024x768 with HQinsane 4000kb/s and second pass goes 2,8-3,3fps with e6600 @2,7GHz

edit: sorry it was 1000kb/s

4000kb/s is about 2,3fps

Last edited by n3r0; 21st August 2006 at 09:59.
n3r0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 13:37   #18  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
n3r0, welcome to the real world performance...
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 14:04   #19  |  Link
Danisan
Registered User
 
Danisan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 66
How about we setup a distributed computing network för x264 encoding, eh?

That number seems normal to me on that system. Even if the new Core 2 Duo is about ??% faster than the AMD X2 it doesn't add that much more fps in the end I think.

Last edited by Danisan; 21st August 2006 at 14:20.
Danisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2006, 15:01   #20  |  Link
DarkZell666
aka XaS
 
DarkZell666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: France
Posts: 1,122
@check: I only have 1 thing to say : dtsroflmmx
__________________

Q9300 OC @ 3.2ghz / Asus P5E3 / 4GB PC10600 / Geforce 8600 GTS
DarkZell666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.