divx Vs (S)vcd

[cypher_soundz]

i recently (last night) decided to convert one of my dvds(PAL) to svcd using dvd2svcd(newest version using TMPEG) after a bad nights sleep i woke to find it still had ~ 22 hours left !!!! if this was a divx it would of been done and dusted by then!!! so my question , i thought divx would of been slower as it has to compress more in to a smaller space? how come my encoding time for svcd is SOOOO high?:(
i just got anoyed and canceled it :D think i might try setting motion picture search precision to low, would this help at all?:confused:

[tiki4]

What were your settings for TMPG and what is your system (which CPU, how much RAM)? Well, it is not uncommon that it takes so long, maybe much longer than DivX (for me as well).

tiki4

[cypher_soundz]

Damn!!! at the mo' i have 600mhz amd duron 320mb dimm ram , i used default settings in tmpg (using dvd2Svcd) . Any idea why it takes so long to encode to mpeg2? i think i will have to upgrade my computer :D lets hope that make a difference ;)

[DJ Bobo]

No matter how fast your computer is, MPEG-2 encoding in TMPG will remain much slower than DivX encoding.
The only MPEG-2 encoding software that is almost as fast as DivX is CCE (it's a real ferrari!)

BTW, if you intend to watch your movies on your PC or using your TV-Out, you better stick to DivX. DivX offers you a much better quality.

[bb]

I'd use TMPGEnc's "motion prediction" (or similar) setting for the motion estimation option. That makes a big difference in terms of speed without loosing too much quality.

bb

[Ookami]

Originally posted by bb
I'd use TMPGEnc's "motion prediction" (or similar) setting for the motion estimation option. That makes a big difference in terms of speed without loosing too much quality.

bb

This is one of the most important settings and setting it to "motion estimate search" is quite different to "high" or "highest quality". Altough, it depends what your source is and what you want to achieve with your encoding.

So we are again on the good old "Everyone has their own taste" story :) .

IMO, if you want speed and HQ encodings don't use TMPGEnc. Simple as that. Of course speed and quality is,again, relative...

Cheers,

Mijo.

[cypher_soundz]

oh i know divx is better , i have ripped many movies , but i just wanted to test my vcd option on my stand alone, it works fine on small mpgs just wanted to see what the quality was like of a whole movie ;) my first ever ½ rip :D CCE is alot better than tmpg PERIOD???

[DJ Bobo]

CCE is faster anyway.

CCE is better for MPEG-2 encoding.

TMPG is better for MPEG-1 encoding.

Never encode audio with CCE.

[tiki4]

This endless discussion is leading to nowhere. I did a 4 SVCD encode of 'Fellowship' with DVD2SVCD using both TMPGEnc (high) and also CCE. In terms of quality I didn't see any difference anymore but if I had been asked which version I liked more I'd said TMPG. This had nothing to do with visible quality but just the overall impression, nothing more.

tiki4

[cypher_soundz]

@tiki4:
How fast is your computer? ...that pretty good encoding time isn't it? as im told it take longer to encode a mpeg than divx? its time for a new comp ;)

[tiki4]

I'm running Ahtlon XP 1600+ with 256 MB DDR-RAM, so I'm no longer in the premier league. However I can encode a 16:9 movie in two-pass XviD in say 4 hours or so. Encoding 3-pass CCE or 2-pass TMPG of 'Fellowship' took more than 12 hours each. You can see the difference.

Regards,

tiki4

[sarahjh69]

athlon xp1600 + 256 meg sdram (not that the ram matters for divx)
divx 5.02 pro 2-pass encoding
takes approx 2x the film length to encode and add mp3 soundtrack
use gordian knot....then u don't need to think!

[cypher_soundz]

yeah its no walk over :scared:
well i think i shall stick with dvd / divx :D vcd take way too long i think i could buy a 2nd "back-up" of the dvd with the electricity bill :D

[int 21h]

Originally posted by tiki4
I'm running Ahtlon XP 1600+ with 256 MB DDR-RAM, so I'm no longer in the premier league. However I can encode a 16:9 movie in two-pass XviD in say 4 hours or so. Encoding 3-pass CCE or 2-pass TMPG of 'Fellowship' took more than 12 hours each. You can see the difference.

Regards,

tiki4

I encode at around 1.4 in CCE, and it takes perhaps just a little longer than XviD. Memory bandwidth and processor optimizations can make a huge difference.

[Infophreak]

Well, you *are* pushing it with 256Mb RAM. CCE likes memory. The more the better. 256Mb is absolutely *bare bones* to make CCE workable.

[tiki4]

@int_21h, Infophreak:

Well, I know that 256 MB isn't what one would consider 'standard' for CCE encoding. On the other hand most of the time I only do XviD and that feels really happy with that amount of memory. I was thinking about getting more RAM since I upgraded to WinXP recently but felt I can delay that some more days. Actually my Win2K run extremely smooth with 256 meg. I usually get around 1.2x encoding speed in CCE (with more RAM this may get better) but if you consider 'Fellowship' is nearly 3 hours and then encoding also audio and all the extraction and image creation in DVD2AVI..., then you have 4 passes of CCE (one for vaf creation). This takes plenty of time :(

For me still DivX/XviD two-pass is the method of choice for backing up DVD.

Regards,

tiki4

[sarahjh69]

i never understand people who have more than 256meg of memory
none of the windoze versions will use more than 256meg of ram
unless you jump through all sorts of hoops and manual registry
changes!
I suspect less than 1 in 10 of you is using more than the basic
amount of ram......regardless of how much you have fitted.
Windoze uses your hard drive when it needs more than 256 meg!
you are wasting your money on unused ram!

(PS. I know some windoze programmes use some extra ram like
photoshop......but these apps are few and far between and
I know of no divx type proggys that use the extra ram on their
own.)

[The Belgain]

Windows 2000 and XP both fully use however much RAM as you have. Also, I thought the limit for the 9x/Me OSes was 512, not 256.

[cult]

I am pretty sure that 512 is the limit

[karloz1]

Win98 and WinME both use up to 512mb ram. Any more than that will cause a lot of illegal ops and blue screens. You use MSConfig and set the limit of your memory to 512 and you'll run ok. I'm not sure how much ram you could use in the XP 32bit OS or 2000, but the 64bit winXP...

Quote from support.microsoft.com:

Memory Limitations for 64-bit Windows XP
Windows XP Professional for 64-bit platforms supports 16 GB of memory.

I think 2000 and XP could use like 1.5 gigs. Well maybe 8 gigs because that is half of 16, and 32 is half of 64...makes sense.

[Infophreak]

All processors from 80386 to P4 support a maximum of 4Gb memory. The reason is rather simple: With 32 bit adressing length, you can only describe 2^32 memory locations. Incidentally, (2^32)b = 4Gb. 64bit processors have a theoretical limit of (2^64)b = 16Pb (peta bytes... this is f*&%ing HUGE).

It's also a well-known fact that Windows doesn't use all the memory that is available to it, unless the programs are specifically written to use all the memory they can get their hands on. Photoshop, 3DSMAX, AutoCAD, and their likes are typical programs of this type. For normal desktop usage (games not withstanding) 512Mb might even be overkill because Windows for some strange reason puts things in swap even though there is plenty of memory available.

[The Belgain]

But if you have 512 meg of memory, you should be able to get away with disabling swapfile entirely and then your memory will be put to use properly.

[poopity poop]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36241

A Link to a discussion I started about tmpeg vs CCE: here is the sum up:

CCE is a LOTF faster for people with single processors, CCE is only slightly faster for people who have dual processors(like me). The difference in quality between a CCE encode(usig settings suggested in getting the best out of CCE, in the guid4 esection), and TMPEG (using 2-pass(VBR) highest motion search precision) is non-exsistant. They encode the same quality.. no blockiness, and the same amount of ringing. No I don't have some scientific way of measuing ringing or blockiness, but I looked and zoomed in on 10's of frames showing high motion low motion and may other tough to encode scenes, and the quality was the same. So there you have it:
IF properly done CCE vs TMPEG is not better in quality, but better in speed(CCE).

not to mention TMPEG is 10 times more stable.