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 Encoder GUIs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18th February 2010, 15:12   #6901  |  Link
Balthazar2k4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here, There, & Everywhere
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by illestdomer2005 View Post
I am just curious if anyone is running an i7 rig right now and has any recommendations...? I have gone from a mid-level gamer to an almost exclusive video encoder and need more power!
That is the same thing that happened to me. I somehow went from PC gaming to video encoding addict. Last year I picked up a Core i7 920 D0 Stepping and an Asus P6Tv2 Deluxe along with 6GB DDR3 1600 memory. I overclocked the i7 to 4ghz with HT on and I can encode a movie in single pass CQ18 @ 720p in about an hour and a half. I haven't tried 1080p so I can't say, but the upgrade was well worth it. I have successfully OC'ed the processor to 4.3, but it just runs too hot for my taste and I have to keep the fan running full tilt. Plus, as you mentioned, LGA1366 will allow for migration to the Gulftown CPU. Anyways, the 920 is definitely an OC'ing dream and you should buy it while you can.
Balthazar2k4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 15:47   #6902  |  Link
laserfan
Aging Video Hobbyist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Off the Map
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwerdna View Post
I have no judder problems now that I switched to Inverse Telecine... Is it common for US 1080i broadcasts to use film (~24 fps) frame rates
Many TV programs are either shot-on-film or otherwise 24p HD, so IVTC is appropriate.

Occasionally the 3-2-3-2 etc cadence is munged at the local affiliate but for the most part simple IVTC works IME.
laserfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 16:27   #6903  |  Link
plouie10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 27
Atak_Snajpera
First of all let me say thanks for your work on ripbot264. I was absolutely stunned at the quality you can get from a blu-ray down to 4gb on main movie. I always use avchd format, lock to 4gb and have never been disappointed. I have a quick question about subtitles. When I first choose the m2ts file and it does it's analysing, it shows the english subtitle, but after I click okay and do all my settings, when I go to click selectable subtitles, it shows nothing in the box. I then have to click the plus "+" button and navigate to the temp folder, job1 and choose it there. Is there some default I can set up or is this the way it works. I'm good either way. Again, fantastic program, thanks for your efforts.
Phil
plouie10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 16:39   #6904  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,226
Quote:
...is this the way it works.
Exactly.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 22:25   #6905  |  Link
juramirez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30
I was just wondering whether my encode times were normal... It's taking from 10 to 15 hours (usually around 12) to encode a BluRay movie with idx/sub subtitles. I'm using default settings. My setup is a Core 2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz, 4GB of RAM, Win 7 64bit, and an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670. Do those sound like normal transcoding times, or am I doing something wrong and taking too long because of it?
juramirez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 22:48   #6906  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,226
you have only 2 cores with slow clock so your times are correct
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2010, 22:49   #6907  |  Link
juramirez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
you have only 2 cores with slow clock so your times are correct
Okie... thanks, I can stop worrying now. =)
juramirez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 05:45   #6908  |  Link
jamd1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 102
Atak - my hard disc crashed and I lost all the old versions of ripbot. I really liked 1.13 (I prefer the simple audio conversion - core dts or 640kbps core from True HD , instead of the wav/flac method - maybe a choice in the ini file could be offered ) Please could you give a link to 1.13 - Thx for your help.
jamd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 06:25   #6909  |  Link
MuLTiTaSK
Registered User
 
MuLTiTaSK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamd1 View Post
Atak - my hard disc crashed and I lost all the old versions of ripbot. I really liked 1.13 (I prefer the simple audio conversion - core dts or 640kbps core from True HD , instead of the wav/flac method - maybe a choice in the ini file could be offered ) Please could you give a link to 1.13 - Thx for your help.
http://www.videohelp.com/tools/RipBo...sions#download
MuLTiTaSK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 15:32   #6910  |  Link
illestdomer2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbers214 View Post
I was in your same boat recently, I had been using a C2Q 6600 and eventually decided I wanted to encode all my movies instead of keeping the raw streams, just for storage considerations. Raw streams were just taking up too much space. So I did a considerable amount of research and decided to go with an i7 860. That chip will easily overclock to 3.6+ and I currently have mine at 3.9 will relatively little effort.

Anyway, my encode times dropped from around 7-8 hours on my C2Q to about 3.5 using High Profile settings and a CF of 18. I definitely recommend the 860 chip, great bang for your buck. I would venture to guess that the X58 series won't bring you much more in terms of encoding, until at least the new chips come out, most people say the purpose of going X58 is for SLI and gaming. So I decided to save myself some money, and I've been considerably happy with my decision.
Awesome, bubbers! That's exactly what I was looking to hear. I had heard that the i7 chips were approximately 30% faster than C2Q chips at the same speed; so, all sorts of efficiency dreams started popping up

The 860 vs 920 thing has driven me nuts! I think you are absolutely right about the difference between the X58 and P55 (et al.) chipsets. I currently have two 8800GT cards in SLI, but I'll never do it again. It's too expensive for the performance return, and I mostly game on my PS3/360/Wii now. Very rarely do I play a game on the comp these days.

I had spec'ed out a Biostar Tpower 55i with the 860 for my brother who is interested in BD conversion as well. For x264, I know it's all about the processor speed, but I wondered if the difference between dual and triple channel RAM on the P55 and X58, respectively, made any appreciable impact...at least as far as video encoding is concerned?
illestdomer2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 15:39   #6911  |  Link
illestdomer2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthazar2k4 View Post
That is the same thing that happened to me. I somehow went from PC gaming to video encoding addict. Last year I picked up a Core i7 920 D0 Stepping and an Asus P6Tv2 Deluxe along with 6GB DDR3 1600 memory. I overclocked the i7 to 4ghz with HT on and I can encode a movie in single pass CQ18 @ 720p in about an hour and a half. I haven't tried 1080p so I can't say, but the upgrade was well worth it. I have successfully OC'ed the processor to 4.3, but it just runs too hot for my taste and I have to keep the fan running full tilt. Plus, as you mentioned, LGA1366 will allow for migration to the Gulftown CPU. Anyways, the 920 is definitely an OC'ing dream and you should buy it while you can.
That is blazing fast! I almost exclusively run 2-pass encodes because I just create AVCHD ISOs for burning to disc and playing on my PS3 or family/friends BD players. I just re-OC'ed my Q6700 from 2.66GHz to 3.33GHz and encode a ~2 hour 720p movie in 4.25 hours. In my experience, the difference between encoding at 720p and 1080p -- at least in 2-pass -- is that 1080p takes about 50% longer.

I had been struggling with whether to spend the $1,000 or so on a new i7 rig or a NAS, but the new rig is getting more and more tempting Besides, I think this C2Q has enough power to be a nice little server in its own right
illestdomer2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 17:25   #6912  |  Link
Balthazar2k4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here, There, & Everywhere
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by illestdomer2005 View Post
That is blazing fast! I almost exclusively run 2-pass encodes because I just create AVCHD ISOs for burning to disc and playing on my PS3 or family/friends BD players. I just re-OC'ed my Q6700 from 2.66GHz to 3.33GHz and encode a ~2 hour 720p movie in 4.25 hours. In my experience, the difference between encoding at 720p and 1080p -- at least in 2-pass -- is that 1080p takes about 50% longer.

I had been struggling with whether to spend the $1,000 or so on a new i7 rig or a NAS, but the new rig is getting more and more tempting Besides, I think this C2Q has enough power to be a nice little server in its own right
I used to use 2-pass, but decided hard drives were cheap and if I am taking the time to backup my collection then I might as well not sacrifice too much. On a 2 hour movie, 2-pass was generally 20-30 minutes slower than CQ. In most instances I can backup a movie in realtime or faster. For instance, I am backing up my Planet Earth discs now and each episode is around 50 minutes and it is taking 50 minutes to back them up. That is at a bitrate of 10,000kbps+ and decoding VC1 (which is generally slower).

In my case I have turned my main computer into my server. It stays on pretty much all the time (since I am almost always encoding) and so I just keep stacking drives in it. I am looking at some NAS boxes now, but I just can't justify the expense... yet.
Balthazar2k4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 18:40   #6913  |  Link
maldino800
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 30
Thank you for a great program
I have some mkv files not compliant with 1920x824 and 1280x526,,,If I use RipBot to make my mkv files compliant with 1920x1080 and 1280x720 AVCHD to play with PS3,,the size and quality will keep the same original or will be reduce ??

Last edited by maldino800; 19th February 2010 at 18:46.
maldino800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 20:54   #6914  |  Link
illestdomer2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthazar2k4 View Post
I used to use 2-pass, but decided hard drives were cheap and if I am taking the time to backup my collection then I might as well not sacrifice too much. On a 2 hour movie, 2-pass was generally 20-30 minutes slower than CQ. In most instances I can backup a movie in realtime or faster. For instance, I am backing up my Planet Earth discs now and each episode is around 50 minutes and it is taking 50 minutes to back them up. That is at a bitrate of 10,000kbps+ and decoding VC1 (which is generally slower).

In my case I have turned my main computer into my server. It stays on pretty much all the time (since I am almost always encoding) and so I just keep stacking drives in it. I am looking at some NAS boxes now, but I just can't justify the expense... yet.
I've noticed -- right or wrong -- that the higher the bitrate, the faster the encode. I guess it makes sense, at least to me, because that means less compression. If you're trying to cut your budget by 25%, that's going to be easier than trying to cut it by 50%. Most of my encodes are to DVD-5; so, I am usually in the 5000 - 6000 bitrate range. If I drop much below 5000, I will consider DVD-9. I absolutely understand your position based on the cost of hard drives and quality...I just want to have optical discs of them in addition to the actual BD

Regarding the NAS, I've really looked hard a Synology and NetGear. Both have some great products, but you're paying A LOT for some hardware that really isn't that impressive. You can build a cheap AMD machine that kills the power of those little boxes, but of course it's all about the software. Synology software looks fantastic, and it's about the only thing giving me pause from just building my own and running FreeNas...or possibly being a masochist and going with Windows Home Server lol
illestdomer2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 21:00   #6915  |  Link
illestdomer2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by maldino800 View Post
Thank you for a great program
I have some mkv files not compliant with 1920x824 and 1280x526,,,If I use RipBot to make my mkv files compliant with 1920x1080 and 1280x720 AVCHD to play with PS3,,the size and quality will keep the same original or will be reduce ??
1) A re-encode will never look as good as the original.

2) You can use one of the tools in RipBot called "TSMuxer" to generate an .m2ts file that will play on the PS3. You just need to make sure the audio codec is compatible. Your MKV file will be bigger when generating an AVCHD, but if you reconvert using RipBot, you can specify the file size in 2-pass mode.
illestdomer2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 21:38   #6916  |  Link
Balthazar2k4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here, There, & Everywhere
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by illestdomer2005 View Post
I've noticed -- right or wrong -- that the higher the bitrate, the faster the encode. I guess it makes sense, at least to me, because that means less compression. If you're trying to cut your budget by 25%, that's going to be easier than trying to cut it by 50%. Most of my encodes are to DVD-5; so, I am usually in the 5000 - 6000 bitrate range. If I drop much below 5000, I will consider DVD-9. I absolutely understand your position based on the cost of hard drives and quality...I just want to have optical discs of them in addition to the actual BD

Regarding the NAS, I've really looked hard a Synology and NetGear. Both have some great products, but you're paying A LOT for some hardware that really isn't that impressive. You can build a cheap AMD machine that kills the power of those little boxes, but of course it's all about the software. Synology software looks fantastic, and it's about the only thing giving me pause from just building my own and running FreeNas...or possibly being a masochist and going with Windows Home Server lol
Actually I have found the opposite in regards to encode times based on higher bitrates (at least when using CQ mode). At 10000+ I get 25fps on avg. At 5000+ I get 32+fps on avg. Also, VC-1 titles are slower to re-encode. With H264 encoded titles, the re-encode rate can jump by as much as 20%.

As for the NAS, that is where I am heading. I have a spare computer that I am tempted to drop FreeNAS on and start piling on the hard drives.
Balthazar2k4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 22:08   #6917  |  Link
pacaveli211
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 412
I'm going to have to say you're both wrong. the encoding time is going to depend on these main factors:
resolution - 720's will process significantly faster than 1080's
aspect ratio - any low aspect ratios take longer, like 1.85 or 1.78 (there are more pixels to analyze)
movie length - of course the longer the movie the more frames and time to process

Last edited by pacaveli211; 19th February 2010 at 22:12.
pacaveli211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 22:39   #6918  |  Link
Balthazar2k4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here, There, & Everywhere
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacaveli211 View Post
I'm going to have to say you're both wrong. the encoding time is going to depend on these main factors:
resolution - 720's will process significantly faster than 1080's
aspect ratio - any low aspect ratios take longer, like 1.85 or 1.78 (there are more pixels to analyze)
movie length - of course the longer the movie the more frames and time to process
Thanks pacaveli211 for the comment. I can attest to the fact that all of the issues you pointed out DO make a time difference. However, if I encode the same move at CQ18 and then CQ22, the CQ22 will get done much faster.
Balthazar2k4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 22:44   #6919  |  Link
pacaveli211
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 412
hmmm, I never use CQ. In that scenario, how much of a time difference does it usually make?
pacaveli211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2010, 22:45   #6920  |  Link
dbone1026
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacaveli211 View Post
hmmm, I never use CQ. In that scenario, how much of a time difference does it usually make?
When I was using 2-Pass, Size locked to 8GB it would take about 10-14 hours with my quad core. When I moved to CQ=18 the times went down to 4-6 hours.
__________________
Cheers,
Damian

Blog - http://www.adigitalhomeblog.com
MSS.net blog (contributing editor) - http://www.mediasmartserver.net
dbone1026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
264, 265, appletv, avchd, bluray, gui, iphone, ipod, ps3, psp, ripbot264, x264 2-pass, x264 gui, x264_64, x265, xbox360

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 02:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.