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 30th October 2011, 10:19   #10201  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,150
because it does not make sense. for instenance have you ever seen stereo ac3 encoded at 384,448,640 kbps. higher bitrate is only useful for streams with more channels.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 10:36   #10202  |  Link
ahmad2008
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arabian Peninsula
Posts: 10
i was not talking about ac3 but about the 2 channels.

i meant more audio bit rate options for the 2 channels from 32 to 320 kbps just like mp3
ahmad2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 11:00   #10203  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,150
why? because you like placebo effect? aac 128kps gives better quality than mp3 192kbps.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 11:22   #10204  |  Link
ahmad2008
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arabian Peninsula
Posts: 10
More freedom of choice for the bit rate from 32 to 320kbps is so much better than to be limited to only 3 choices (64,96,128 ) for all your videos encoding even if aac 128kps gives better quality than mp3 192kbps.
ahmad2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 14:25   #10205  |  Link
FarQueue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11
Ability to use multiple audio tracks would be a handy new feature.
FarQueue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 16:19   #10206  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarQueue View Post
Ability to use multiple audio tracks would be a handy new feature.

I'm guessing it's to keep ripbot as simple as possible. Less things to go wrong. But you can use mkvmerge, which is included in the ripbot package, to add multiple tracks and it takes just a few seconds.
rc71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 16:22   #10207  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad2008 View Post
More freedom of choice for the bit rate from 32 to 320kbps is so much better than to be limited to only 3 choices (64,96,128 ) for all your videos encoding even if aac 128kps gives better quality than mp3 192kbps.
I see your point a little, but if you really need something that big, why are you bothering with ripbot? The point is to make things smaller.
If you need 320k MP3's, maybe Ripbot might not be right for you.

If you are a 64k MP3 Pro person, this is the game for you.

Ultimately, you can manually go in to the jobs queue and change the number to whatever you want. Just open up the .bat file and go at it.
rc71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 16:32   #10208  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorro70 View Post
Is there any way to get ripbot to use 100% processor on the first pass without quality loss

im using intel 2600k and it uses 30% first pass on max quality avchd encodes


quality is my goal, if it diminishes quality it doesn't matter


;-)
First, 'I want quality, but if quality drops, that doesn't matter.' Huh?

Anyway, if you use CQ mode with NO filters, you get 100%. If you touch it in anyway, you get 30%. That tells me it's not a System issue, but a program issue. It seems that the x264 encoder doesn't like to use external filters or settings.
rc71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 17:46   #10209  |  Link
pacaveli211
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 412
CQ mode is actually encoding. First pass, by default, is a fast pass, not an actual encode.
pacaveli211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 19:28   #10210  |  Link
Zorro70
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rc71 View Post
First, 'I want quality, but if quality drops, that doesn't matter.' Huh?

Anyway, if you use CQ mode with NO filters, you get 100%. If you touch it in anyway, you get 30%. That tells me it's not a System issue, but a program issue. It seems that the x264 encoder doesn't like to use external filters or settings.
you misread what i said

i said i want quality, but if quality drops, then it doesnt matter.

you took that to mean i dont care if quality drops.


what i meant was if it affects quality it doesnt matter il just leave it as it is
Zorro70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 02:32   #10211  |  Link
soneca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 753
Quote:
and one has 8 cores, which is always better for encoding
Never noticed any difference, despite having made several times that work with processors with 4 and 6 cores.
soneca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 08:27   #10212  |  Link
ahmad2008
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arabian Peninsula
Posts: 10
i hope that i expressed my thought well

all what i wanted is the whole list of the 2 channels audio bit rates from 32 to 320kbps and not to be limited only to (64,96,128) even if no one going to use 320kbps

i hope i find it in the next release
ahmad2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 14:14   #10213  |  Link
DIEGO7-5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarQueue View Post
Ability to use multiple audio tracks would be a handy new feature.
I totally agree. At least one more language.

Keep up the good work Atak!
DIEGO7-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 16:25   #10214  |  Link
chainring
Registered User
 
chainring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad2008 View Post
i hope that i expressed my thought well

all what i wanted is the whole list of the 2 channels audio bit rates from 32 to 320kbps and not to be limited only to (64,96,128) even if no one going to use 320kbps

i hope i find it in the next release
I can understand WHY you would want the full list of available bitrates, but it's not going to happen in RipBot. This program is about total simplicity and introducing too many tweaks/bithead options will not stop if something like this request is allowed.

Seriously, if you can do some ABX tests and show that you really need more than 128K on two channel content, that might convince Atak to add more, but until that time it's not gonna happen. Check out the tests of music (much more difficult than effects in movies) at hydrogenaudio.org and tell me you need more than 128K. Maybe, just maybe adding 160 to placate those wanting more, but it's not necessary.
chainring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 05:46   #10215  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
Random Rant

I just have say I love this program. I have some STE WEB-DL's that are 1.5gb and I'm reEcoding them and they are coming out at 500-550mb and check this out, THEY ARE BETTER QUALITY THAN THE ORIGINALs.
Seriously. With a little tweaking of the colors, contrast, and the denoising, they look better at 1/3rd the size. Oh, and I'm correcting the FPS which was at a sqeaky 25fps to 23.976FPS. ALL with Ripbot.



rc71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 08:19   #10216  |  Link
LigH
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
 
LigH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 5,941
@ Zorro70:

Always unterstand that the encoder can only encode as fast as it receives the uncompressed video it shall process.

What exactly is your source? (MediaInfo analysis please.) Which decoder do you use to decode it for x264, if it is compressed?

If the source is compressed, the bottleneck might be the decoder running in one thread only, or the filtering, before the final video arrives in the encoder.

If the source is completely uncompressed, the bottleneck might be the harddisk, but you will know how many GB per minute you stored.
__

Quote:
Originally Posted by rc71 View Post
THEY ARE BETTER QUALITY THAN THE ORIGINALs.
It may look better, but can't be better. That is the difference between "subjective quality" (how annoying the flaws appear) and "objective quality" (any difference is a loss, no matter if it looks more convenient).
__________________

New German Gleitz board
MediaFire: x264 | x265 | VPx | AOM | Xvid

Last edited by LigH; 1st November 2011 at 08:22.
LigH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 14:59   #10217  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
While I understand what you are trying to say about something being recompressed being better, "It may look better, but can't be better." since this is video and it's subjective quality is visual, if it looks better than it is better.
rc71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 15:04   #10218  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by LigH View Post
@ Zorro70:


If the source is compressed, the bottleneck might be the decoder running in one thread only, or the filtering, before the final video arrives in the encoder.
I'll have to investigate that. Sounds like a promising lead. As for the other suggestions, remember that CPU usage only drops when you change the profile away from CQ. Either with filters or by making it two pass. Since with CQ/no filters vs. CQ/filter CPU usage drops from 98% to 30%, that doesn't suggest it's a system bottleneck.

Also at least for me, I'm using the 32bit version. This might different for 64bit.

There is a new version of x264.exe that was released last week. You could try it. Didn't seem to do much for me. CPU usage has increased from a bit more with No increase or real change in FPS.

Last edited by rc71; 1st November 2011 at 15:20. Reason: New info
rc71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 15:42   #10219  |  Link
LigH
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
 
LigH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 5,941
1) If you believe it looks much better, enjoy. But don't try to measure anything with "quality metrics" – they will call any kind of difference a "quality loss".

2) x264 will probably be the most efficient link in the encoding chain, spreading its efforts across all available CPU cores. If it can't use all of them all the time, then it must have to wait for something else before...
__________________

New German Gleitz board
MediaFire: x264 | x265 | VPx | AOM | Xvid
LigH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 16:12   #10220  |  Link
rc71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 121
Update. The New x264 file does do better with different settings. I'm using custom settings and NO filters, but I'm rocking 98% CPU so it's better than before.
rc71 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 12:50.


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