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: 93
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: 93
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: 93
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: 335
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: 93
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: 335
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 21st August 2006, 09:43   #12  |  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, 07:09   #13  |  Link
check
phjbdpcrjlj2sb3h
 
check's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,691
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 23rd August 2006, 05:57   #14  |  Link
hvatum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by check
Go for MATTX for teh win!

The other day I completed transcoding a 2 byte MATTX file to MPEG4 and it filled up my whole terrabyte array before it was even zero percent done. No compression ratio is more amazing or compare even to MATTX.
__________________
Fresco, the next Generation X windows www.fresco.org
hvatum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 04:18   #15  |  Link
Prettz
easily bamboozled user
 
Prettz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 373
So I've got an Athlon 64 3500 and I'm encoding The Matrix at 704x288. I didn't choose a profile, but with the settings I chose I've got ~5.2fps, 11 hours per pass (I didn't choose Turbo 1st pass cause I'm hardcore like that).

I'm glad to know that I paid all this money for this CPU and I can actually take full advantage of it (by bringing it to its knees).
Prettz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 04:41   #16  |  Link
Flexy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prettz

I'm glad to know that I paid all this money for this CPU and I can actually take full advantage of it (by bringing it to its knees).
Well..in my case the encoding brings*me* to my knees praying and waitiing desperately for the encode to finish

(Mind you my A64 runs at 2608 Mhz)

or: "Why the *** did i pay ALL THIS MONEY and it STILL takes 13 hrs for an encode ??

Maybe we need multi-threading...a la "for each pixel it's own CPU )..that would certanly fly
Flexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 04:50   #17  |  Link
Adub
Fighting spam with a fish
 
Adub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,699
I'm glad to know that I paid all this money for this CPU and I can actually take full advantage of it (by bringing it to its knees).

All this money?
__________________
FAQs:Bond's AVC/H.264 FAQ
Site:Adubvideo
Adub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2006, 19:42   #18  |  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   #19  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,558
Actually that's pretty fast for insane, for most people. You must have a high-end x2.
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd August 2006, 20:31   #20  |  Link
frodeste
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyshadis
Actually that's pretty fast for insane, for most people. You must have a high-end x2.
True. I do, and I am running 64 bit Vista... (Which is quite faster then XP on the same machine believe it or not)
__________________
frodeste

--
http://www.stenstrom.no
frodeste 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 14:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.