Video Encoding how do i speed it up ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter We Live for the One we Die for the One
  • Start date Start date
Jan said:
I've used both platforms for rendering and encoding and see little
difference in speed using comparable CPU's of both AMD and P4.
Click to expand...

Depends on the software. If you're using newer software that uses the P4's
SSE2, the difference can be dramitic. If you're using old software you're
right, you'll see no difference.

I did some testing on a P4 2.4 and an XP 2400 using vegas video 4 on a
test render file, the P4 did the render in 1/2 the time it took the XP 2400
to do it. Like I said though if you use older software, you'll see no
differnce. It's like Intels MMX was years ago, if you aren't ussing MMX
apps, it doesn't help.

I'm a big fan of AMD chips so before you flame me as pushing intel
products, I don't. I just suggest which works best for specific
applications and for video work, a P4 is the better platform.
 
Gareth said:
Could you define what you mean by 'stripping extra bits' ?
Click to expand...

Getting an 8GB to fit on a DVDR in 10-20 minutes implies use of a
program like DVDShrink or DVDXCopy. These programs do not re-encode
the video. They simply remove the lesser-significant bits until the
target bitrate is reached. If it were really re-encoding the video,
it would probably take at least overnight in most systems.

For more info, check:
http://nerds.palmdrive.net/dvds_tmpgenc1.html


-WD
 
We Live for the One we Die for the One said:
I just want to speed up my SVCD making, seems to take FOREVER on my Xp
2400 :( and at top quality settings takes 8 hours or more !

Can i buy a HArdware PCi card to do it faster ? and if so how much
faster ?

Or maybe updateing to an Amd 64 3400 will speed it up well it woudl
but by how much any estimates, 120minute movie converted to SVCD ?

Thanks for any help you maybe give and MErry Christmas, it aint that
far away.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Get a CPU with SSE2 (AMD64 or P4)
 
:
: >[email protected] wrote:
: >
: >
: >>
: >> Back when I first started testing TMPGEnc it would take me 6-8 hours
: >> but then I saw some posts somewhere that said they couldnt tell the
: >> difference between the Normal setting and high Q so I tried it and it
: >> usually drops down quite a bit around 3 hours or less depending on the
: >> length of the film of course.
: >
: >This is some really good advice. Play around with a small clip at
different
: >settings (something that takes 2 minutes or so to compress) and see how
the
: >quality/speed changes with different settings. People assume they need to
: >use the highest quality setting but you might not see any difference.
: >Especially as he said the motion controls.
:
: And Ive done it many many times. Honest I cant tell any difference so
: far, But then I dont scan every frame to see flaws. It looks fine to
: me though maybe some expert may point out some flaws Im not aware of.
: The time difference is dramatic.

No offence but isn't the real value of a movie
the script and the acting? I can't imagine a movie
that would suffer by a few artifacts.
 
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:49:05 -0700, "aka Gray asphalt"

ence is dramatic.
No offence but isn't the real value of a movie
the script and the acting? I can't imagine a movie
that would suffer by a few artifacts.
Click to expand...

Well it's all relative. Certainly the compression can be high enough that
(per individual taste) it spoils the movie. Looking at it the other way,
if a user can accept "X" pecentage of visual degratation, then it may be
possible to have lower bitrate to achieve that acceptable quality (or vary
the time needed to process or encode, again a personal preference).
 
: On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:49:05 -0700, "aka Gray asphalt"
:
: ence is dramatic.
: >
: >No offence but isn't the real value of a movie
: >the script and the acting? I can't imagine a movie
: >that would suffer by a few artifacts.
: >
:
: Well it's all relative. Certainly the compression can be high enough that
: (per individual taste) it spoils the movie. Looking at it the other way,
: if a user can accept "X" pecentage of visual degratation, then it may be
: possible to have lower bitrate to achieve that acceptable quality (or vary
: the time needed to process or encode, again a personal preference).
:

True. I guess it's just me. I have Field of dreams
on mpeg, CD quality, and it just doesn't bother
me that there are a few jaggies. Now sound is
a different ball game, altogether. : -)
Thanks for you courteous reply. : -))
 
Back
Top