Limiting factors for encoding and transcoding.

Foxor` · 9 May 2006 at 16:33

I do quite a lot of encoding and transcoding on my pc (specs in sig) and it takes a while to change stuff to dvd format from VCD or Divx. Using nero7 it takes;

1.36gb divx to dvd = 1hour 12mins
2x700mb VCD to dvd = 3hours 50mins

Thats a long time for both really. and id like to cut down the time it takes to transcode vcd's to dvd. Any ideas? is Raid 0 the solution?

vanandjuanunited · 9 May 2006 at 16:34

Might help if we could see your sig. Its too big.

Foxor` · 9 May 2006 at 16:39

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.60GHz (2 CPUs)
3068MB RAM
RADEON X1800 Series
SB X-Fi Audio [C8A0]
Maxtor 7L250S0

Energize · 9 May 2006 at 16:52

Processor is the main factor, upgrade that to see a boost.

You didnt mention how long those videos were. Encoding speed isnt based on filesize its based on the frames rendered.

A 3hr film at 1.36gb will take 3x as long as a 1 hour film at 1.36gb.

Foxor` · 10 May 2006 at 10:21

the vcd's cd1 is 1hour 2mins and cd2 is 52mins
the divx is 102mins thats loads better quality then the vcd tho.

does nero take advantage of dc cpu's? i dought a 3.8ghz (im assuming thats the fastest singlecore they make(bar the over priced EE chips) would make much of a diff

Foxor

Orifice · 10 May 2006 at 10:31

Using nero 7 to encode a 1.37gb file takes about 42 mins, using a Pentium D 830, it seems to take advantage of both cores as according to task manager its using 97%.

If its the 660 in your sig that your using, then its only hyperthreading, which is pretty useless for encoding, you need true dual core.

Energize · 10 May 2006 at 16:13

Orifice said:
Using nero 7 to encode a 1.37gb file takes about 42 mins, using a Pentium D 830, it seems to take advantage of both cores as according to task manager its using 97%.

If its the 660 in your sig that your using, then its only hyperthreading, which is pretty useless for encoding, you need true dual core.

How long is the 1.37gb file though? Like I said, its frames rendered not filesize that determines how long it takes. Knowing the filesize doesnt help when you dont know how long the video lasts.

fornowagain · 10 May 2006 at 18:01

I haven't looked into this to closely, so it may not be what you need. But the ATI x1*** cards have hardware encoding. I used it to convert some MPEG to DIVX and it was a LOT quicker than VirtualDub (cpu).

Foxor` · 10 May 2006 at 19:08

Orifice said:
Using nero 7 to encode a 1.37gb file takes about 42 mins, using a Pentium D 830, it seems to take advantage of both cores as according to task manager its using 97%.

If its the 660 in your sig that your using, then its only hyperthreading, which is pretty useless for encoding, you need true dual core.

i know the diff between logical and physical cores

Foxor` · 10 May 2006 at 19:10

the vcd's cd1 is 1hour 2mins and cd2 is 52mins
the divx is 102mins thats loads better quality then the vcd tho.

1.3gb = 102mins
2x700 - 124mins

time to encode

1.36gb divx to dvd = 1hour 12mins
2x700mb VCD to dvd = 3hours 50mins

Energize · 10 May 2006 at 19:19

Foxor` said:
the vcd's cd1 is 1hour 2mins and cd2 is 52mins
the divx is 102mins thats loads better quality then the vcd tho.

1.3gb = 102mins
2x700 - 124mins

time to encode

1.36gb divx to dvd = 1hour 12mins
2x700mb VCD to dvd = 3hours 50mins

Somethings wrong with that time for vcd to dvd it shouldnt be anywhere near that amount of time. The vcd is only 114mins long, it should be roughly the same length as the divx one, not more than 3x longer. What program are you using because with a 3.8ghz cpu you should be getting less than a 1:1 encoding ratio, I would have thought that you'd be getting 1:0.75 at the worst. Unless your using two pass encoding?

Try svcd2dvd, is one of the best programs out there for dvd conversion, it might be the software that your using.

hhhhbk · 11 May 2006 at 02:33

CPU and software are what have major effects

your processor is fine
dvdsanta was pretty quick at turning video files into dvds
sadly it doesnt seem to want to work since i installed SP2 and i havent got around to fiddling with it yet

Foxor` · 11 May 2006 at 12:36

Energize said:
Somethings wrong with that time for vcd to dvd it shouldnt be anywhere near that amount of time. The vcd is only 114mins long, it should be roughly the same length as the divx one, not more than 3x longer. What program are you using because with a 3.8ghz cpu you should be getting less than a 1:1 encoding ratio, I would have thought that you'd be getting 1:0.75 at the worst. Unless your using two pass encoding?

Try svcd2dvd, is one of the best programs out there for dvd conversion, it might be the software that your using.

3.6ghz cpu.
Nero7
Two pass encoding is on yes. Shall i turn this off - will it decrease the image quality a lot? Im pretty fussy on how a film/programs looks(in terms of picture quality), or i wont watch it.

Going to try the programs suggested

Energize · 11 May 2006 at 16:22

Its upto you, Personally I dont notice a difference from single pass to 2 pass on xvid to dvd conversion so I have it off because it doubles the encode time, using 2 pass with vcd to dvd is pointless though because the dvd at cbr will still be the same quality however many passes you make. And if your using 2 pass encoding with a constant bitrate, don't.