easy2Bcheesy
3rd July 2005, 15:33
I'm currently looking to back-up my DVDs onto a new media server, and I had my heart set on using H.264 to retain as much quality as possible but at reasonable file sizes.
My first test encode via Nero Digital was encouraging - up against a similarly sized AutoGK XviD encode, there seemed to be far more in the way of fine detail - the XviD encode was fairly 'fuzzy' in comparison.
The only problem is that while one 50 minute episode of Jonathan Creek took about two hours to encode using AutoGK on a two-pass encode, a single-pass Nero Recode encode took well over four hours! Using x264 via Virtual Dub, average fps was 3-4 :(
I'm using a Dell Dimension 8400 PC with 2GB RAM and a 3.4GHz HT CPU. Is H.264 coding really that CPU intensive or am I doing something hideously wrong?
My first test encode via Nero Digital was encouraging - up against a similarly sized AutoGK XviD encode, there seemed to be far more in the way of fine detail - the XviD encode was fairly 'fuzzy' in comparison.
The only problem is that while one 50 minute episode of Jonathan Creek took about two hours to encode using AutoGK on a two-pass encode, a single-pass Nero Recode encode took well over four hours! Using x264 via Virtual Dub, average fps was 3-4 :(
I'm using a Dell Dimension 8400 PC with 2GB RAM and a 3.4GHz HT CPU. Is H.264 coding really that CPU intensive or am I doing something hideously wrong?