VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 77
Thread
  1. Member drtalk's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: CANADA
    Search Comp PM
    I am getting heavily into video editing and production and have quickly learned that the rendering process of a video file is extremely taxing on a single processor, which of course means...IT TAKES FOREVER!

    It's been mentioned to me that a dual core processor would make the rendering process much, much faster. If I recall correctly, using the task manager, you can set the affinity of both processors to the single application that is doing the rendering. I guess that means it would be like having two processors performing the task at once. Speaking of which, the other thing brought to my attention was having a motherboard with 2 processors on it. This is unfamiliar territory for me, so if you know about this, let me know.

    Due to my schedule, I don't have a lot of time to research all the details needed. All I need to know is what I need to get my video rendering done in a FAST and efficient way. I mean having to leave my computer on overnight to render a 1 hour 40 minute video is not acceptable to me.

    If you have the answers, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it.
    Life is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Quite simply, get yourself a machine with a Core2 Duo Intel E6600 processor, and your encoding time will be 6-8x faster than your current system. That will give you the most bang for the buck.



    Don't get 2 physical processors, the additional cost doesn't provide the degree of benefit like it once did.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    Dual core processors will usually help, or faster CPUs or multiple CPUs.

    What encoder and codec format are you using? Overnight for a 1 hr 40mn video seems a little slow unless you are doing HD or a lot of filtering and other processes or using a container like H264?

    And this isn't capturing. Moving you to Advanced Conversion Forum.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member drtalk's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: CANADA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by redwudz
    Dual core processors will usually help, or faster CPUs or multiple CPUs.

    What encoder and codec format are you using? Overnight for a 1 hr 40mn video seems a little slow unless you are doing HD or a lot of filtering and other processes or using a container like H264?

    And this isn't capturing. Moving you to Advanced Conversion Forum.
    Hi redwudz,

    Sorry for posting in the "Capture" section, but since a lot of the video I edit, author and prepare to burn to DVD comes from a capture I thought I should post there in case it made a difference.
    My expertise is more in the audio field. I've been dabbling with fairly basic video stuff for about a year now but nothing too complex. In terms or what encoder or codec I'm using I'm really unsure. If it helps, I use Sony Vegas 6.0 for rendering. For capturing, I use the Pinnacle USB Studio in a box which comes with Studio 10.7 and the capturing device with composite, s-video and digital inputs. I know that the Pinnacle system saves the captures in MPEG form, but to take that file into Vegas and manipulate it however you want, you can't just save the new project...you HAVE to render it. This is what is taking my system so long to do. In most cases I'm transferring VHS tapes of family stuff or stuff my friends need onto DVD.
    Life is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member drtalk's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: CANADA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Soopafresh
    Quite simply, get yourself a machine with a Core2 Duo Intel E6600 processor, and your encoding time will be 6-8x faster than your current system. That will give you the most bang for the buck.



    Don't get 2 physical processors, the additional cost doesn't provide the degree of benefit like it once did.
    Hi Soopafresh,
    Thanks for the quick reply. This chip will really increase my rendering time by 6 to 8 times??? As I posted to redwudz, most of what I'm doing is VHS transfers for family & friends. The capture device I'm using is the Pinnacle 510 USB with Studio Plus 10.7 for editing. Does this make a difference in any way? And no, I am not doing anything in HD....yet. Let me get the basics down on a simple VHS transfer to DVD before I go there! LOL
    Life is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Soopafresh's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2004
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Not really - the place where you will see the performance increase is in Mpeg encoding, or if you are adding a bunch of effects to your video in Vegas and are saving to a file.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2004
    Location: Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by drtalk
    I know that the Pinnacle system saves the captures in MPEG form, but to take that file into Vegas and manipulate it however you want, you can't just save the new project...you HAVE to render it.
    Use a MPEG editor, they only reencode what has to be reencoded. Two benefits, no quality loss and of course speed. FYI if you are applyng filters or adjusting the brightness or other things that will affect the entire clip this won't help.

    Womble and Ulead products are two.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member drtalk's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2005
    Location: CANADA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by thecoalman
    Originally Posted by drtalk
    I know that the Pinnacle system saves the captures in MPEG form, but to take that file into Vegas and manipulate it however you want, you can't just save the new project...you HAVE to render it.
    Use a MPEG editor, they only reencode what has to be reencoded. Two benefits, no quality loss and of course speed. FYI if you are applyng filters or adjusting the brightness or other things that will affect the entire clip this won't help.

    Womble and Ulead products are two.
    Hi coalman, Thx for the input. Can you recommend a good MPEG editor? As far as applying filters and such, no, I haven't gone there yet or needed to. My preference is to do everything in Vegas because it has all the editing tools, transitions & fades. That's as complicated as I get. But if an MPEG editor will do the same, and it does what you say, then I'm all for it. There are however 2 things that I would like to have control over without involving hours of time or millions of steps. They are: 1) Ability to boost or lower volume in a video file. 2) Crop the transfered capture file. Too often I am left with noise either at the top, bottom or side(s) of the file. I know that with Vegas I can adjust the audio to an extent, but I have more control if I open it in Sony's Sound Forge. The problem is that after I have the audio just right and save the file, the video suddenly goes missing...just a black screen! As you can tell, I'm really having a hell of a time with this. LOL Any input would be appreciated.
    Life is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: May 2007
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    If you're on a budget you can go for an AMD 64 x2 processor such as a 5000+ Costs much less than an Intel C2D processor with only slightly less performance.

    Also, don't encode while playing Doom 3 or something. Even dual core processors share the same bus lines so performance will suffer somewhere.

    Just my 2 cents.

    SP
    Quote Quote  
  10. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    drtalk, if you are cropping, you will have to re-encode the whole file, which will take time. And you want to make sure, if your final product is DVD, that you pad the video frame back out to a standard resolution. If you started with 720 X 480, you need to made sure it's at that framesize when you encode.

    BTW, most of the time that edge noise is hidden in the TVs overscan area, so I rarely crop it out. If I do, I add a black 'letterbox' around it to pad it back to standard framesizes to avoid resizing. Resizing can also hurt quality and take a while. Cropping interlaced video can also cause problems with your interlacing and lower quality if not used properly.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Marvingj's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2004
    Location: Death Valley, Bomb-Bay
    Search Comp PM
    Before you buy an MPEG editor, you must realize that MPEG was not designed to be edited. MPEG is a high-powered compression algorithm made for pre-edited video that is simply played back as-is and never changed.

    The main thing that makes it difficult to edit MPEG video is that an MPEG encoder only puts out one full "reference" frame for every 14 or so "difference" frames. These difference frames only encode what changed since the reference frame. This is where MPEG's high compression comes from: difference frames are much smaller than reference frames. (This is an oversimplified explanation, but it suffices.)

    Since difference frames depend on a previous reference frame in order to be decoded, the only place in an MPEG stream that you can do simple cuts is right before a reference frame. If you were to cut the video before a difference frame, that difference frame and all subsequent difference frames would refer to a preceding reference frame that doesn't exist any more. That stream would then fail to decode properly. There are two main types of MPEG editors these days: standalone editors, and traditional video editing software (NLEs).

    The standalone software is mostly a throwback to the days when few NLE packages would read MPEG files, but they still have some value. Being dedicated programs, they may sometimes work better than generic NLE software. For example, Apple's highly-regarded Final Cut Pro will let you edit MPEG files, but it will re-encode the entire stream. A dedicated MPEG editor will either give you GOP-level cuts or GOP re-encoding, so the entire stream isn't re-encoded. In the past I've used Womble's MPEG2VCR, TMPGEnc's editing features, and Vitec Multimedia's MPEG editors. It's been a long time since I used any of these.
    http://www.absolutevisionvideo.com

    BLUE SKY, BLACK DEATH!!
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Am in a similar position to the original poster. Have just ordered a dual-core PC (well, half a PC really) and am expecting better encoding times. At present it takes me 20 hours to reduce a full DVD9 to DVD5 using DVD-RB + CCE (both trial versions) in 10-pass mode.

    Is there anyhting I have to "do" to DVD-RB or CCE to take advantage of dual-core technology or will they just "know"?

    Have also noticed that DVD-RB is very heavy on memory, it was drawing 612MB last time I checked. Will having four times as much RAM improve encoding times at all?

    Present PC = 2GHz Pentium 4 + 512K Ram
    New PC = 2x3.2GHz Pentium D + 2 Gig RAM (both running Win XP Home SP2)
    Quote Quote  
  13. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    Usually more RAM is not going to help with encoding times. I'm not sure what your programs are doing with the RAM you have. Most times, my computer uses about 300 - 400MB of RAM when encoding, though I have 1GB.

    With dual core and XP, you can check your Task Manager>Performance and see the utilization for each core. In TM again, you can check the 'Process' being used and right click that process and get some options for CPU utilization. But usually XP makes a good choice. You can also choose the application, right click, and 'Go to process' if you are not sure which one is being used.

    Some programs or encoders are 'dual core or dual processor aware', some aren't. Divx is one codec that seems to use both cores fairly easily.

    Just as a side note, 32bit OS's can only use a bit less than 4GB RAM, no matter how much you have installed. You need a 64bit OS to use more.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2004
    Location: Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    10 passes in CCE is a waste of time IMO. Once you have squeezed it down from 9 to 5, more than 4 passes produces no visible improvement. Start doing 4 passes instead and you will find rendering times are cut by around 60%, even without the new hardware.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2003
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    If you can cancel the Pentium D do so.

    Get the Core 2 Duo it runs much cooler. That leads to not needing lots of fans and less noise. The Pentium D dual was a stop gap until the Core2Duo was ready and was done by Intel in answer to the AMD dual cores.

    If you end up with the Pentium D watch out for those oversize coolers that some use. They are so heavy I suspect they'll cause Mobo problems down the road. I've seen some of the Zalman for the older 478 socket where the plastic mounts that hold them to the motherboard just can't take the load. Once they break it means pulling the board to change the mount, when you can find them. We get people coming in all the time looking for the heatsink mounts for 478 and AMD 754,939 and AM2 sockets due to breakage.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Is there anyhting I have to "do" to DVD-RB or CCE to take advantage of dual-core technology or will they just "know"?

    Yep, don't get a Pentium D. Get Core2 Duo. They'll help a lot in improving your times. And you can double-thread AviSynth which can also help considerably:

    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=94996
    http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MT_support_page
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by guns1inger
    10 passes in CCE is a waste of time IMO. Once you have squeezed it down from 9 to 5, more than 4 passes produces no visible improvement. Start doing 4 passes instead and you will find rendering times are cut by around 60%, even without the new hardware.
    I did a 4-pass encode of West Side Story (DTS, Japan) and it was only as good as DVD Shrink, that is heavily pixelated on fast moving dance sequences. It took at least 8-passes to improve on DVD Shrink. Since then I've used 10-passes for everything and not looked back.
    Originally Posted by TBoneit
    If you can cancel the Pentium D do so.

    Get the Core 2 Duo it runs much cooler. That leads to not needing lots of fans and less noise. The Pentium D dual was a stop gap until the Core2Duo was ready and was done by Intel in answer to the AMD dual cores.
    I know but around here Core 2 Duo's are lot more expensive GHz for GHz. Besides which I can always upgrade to a Core 2 Duo processor later when prices come down and speeds go up The chief purpose of the new PC was to have a backup when things go wrong and a place to mount my spare drives. Faster encodes are just a bonus
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date: Jun 2003
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    You can't compare a Core2Duo to a Pentium D on a GHz-GHz basis. The C2D is much more efficient than the Pentium D.
    A 2.4Ghz C2D will out perform a 3GHz Pentium D.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by KBeee
    You can't compare a Core2Duo to a Pentium D on a GHz-GHz basis. The C2D is much more efficient than the Pentium D.
    A 2.4Ghz C2D will out perform a 3GHz Pentium D.
    It costs more too
    Quote Quote  
  20. Since then I've used 10-passes for everything and not looked back.
    That is sheer madness .. if it aint showing improvement by pass 3 (really pass2) then it aint worth stuffing it into your PC for another 10 hours roasting!. Also 2 procs as opposed to one is generally a no -brainer these days but it wont cut your rendering in half. A lot of software is still only single cpu aware. core2duo is vastly better than a Pent D for heat reasons, efficiency, but also dont rule out an amd x2. At least with a dual cpu you can use second cpu for other purposes while rendering, (not gaming). Also think about changing what you do, perhaps only re-render specific segments of your vids? or change software, try tmpgenc or adjusting your video bitrates eg hi 8000 avg 3300 lo 500.

    Maybe your peepers or your noggin needs adjusting?
    Corned beef is now made to a higher standard than at any time in history.
    The electronic components of the power part adopted a lot of Rubycons.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member somebodeez's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2002
    Location: Here
    Search Comp PM
    I absolutely adore my Intel Core2Duo 2.66 GHz 1066 FSB for video processing!
    I was soooo amazed at the speeds. I get better than real time encoding 8)
    If saving time (and not necessarily $) is what you're after, I for sure without a doubt recommend a Core2Duo.

    I also have a Pentium D but I've never been very happy with it. Mine ran very hot (which will slow down your speeds). It took a lot of time and some extra $ just to get her to run at under the danger level temperature. Attempts at video encoding ofcourse shot those temperatures right back up there.

    It's been my experience that Core2Duo is much better. Couple that with SATA drives and a GB or 2 of RAM and she'll fly for you 8)

    At least, mine sure does!
    Quote Quote  
  22. I too believe 10 passes is excessive, 3 or four is generally accepted as the max needed. I would suggest re-running your test, as this has been done many times by many posters here and there is near-universal agreement on this issue. I have Never seen Anyone recommend more than 4.

    Major speed improvement, as well as quality, would be to capture as AVI, Huffy lossless compression, then edit and encode that. The capture to MPG is degrading quality, and decoding while editing, and then again while compressing, can cause a major slowdown. My tests with a couple different encoders and PC's point towards a near 50% time savings.

    You could throw a lot of money at hardware to get some improvement, I would bet some procedure changes would cut your total time by a much greater amount.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member SandyB's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry, but the Pentium D 900 series is the same core as the Core 2 duo, and will encode AVI to DVD at 4.5x (Mainconcept Encoder),temp never excedes 50c (stock cooling fan). The Pentium D 800 series is the same core as the Pentium 4, and heats up to 75c or higher (Thermaltake cooling)
    Quote Quote  
  24. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Location: Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    I have a core 2 duo 6600 myself. It's the best solution for video encoding now. I can even convert to x234 using the unofficial vfm version at half realtime speed!

    It's a very good CPU. The best right now for our hobby!
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2003
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ has benchmarks compring various CPUs. Highend chart @ http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html shows a Pentium D 3.2 benchmark @ 933 vs a Core 2 6300 1.86Ghz benchmarks @ 1417

    There is a reason the Pentium D is cheaper. As well as being an older design. OTOH with a Pentium D you can turn off the heat in the room in the winter when you are encoding. And it won't overheat since it slows down as it gets hot to prevent CPU damage.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TBoneit
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ has benchmarks compring various CPUs. Highend chart @ http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html shows a Pentium D 3.2 benchmark @ 933 vs a Core 2 6300 1.86Ghz benchmarks @ 1417

    There is a reason the Pentium D is cheaper. As well as being an older design. OTOH with a Pentium D you can turn off the heat in the room in the winter when you are encoding. And it won't overheat since it slows down as it gets hot to prevent CPU damage.
    So nobody should upgrade to a Pentium D becuase a Pentium 4 is faster and never overheats?
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member somebodeez's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2002
    Location: Here
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by ntscuser
    So nobody should upgrade to a Pentium D becuase a Pentium 4 is faster and never overheats?
    I wouldn't necessarily say nobody should upgrade to a Pentium D...
    IMHO, based upon my personal experience with my Pentium D, I'd say that a Pentium D may not be very good for video encoders. Mine sure isn't.
    It would depend on what you'd want to do with it.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Originally Posted by somebodeez
    I wouldn't necessarily say nobody should upgrade to a Pentium D...
    I would. The Pentium D Presler 3.2GHz is $94:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116262

    The Allendale Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8GHz is just $20 more:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115013

    With a score of 1433, it scores about 55% better than the Pentium D in the benchmark to which TBoneit linked. I don't even understand why there's any argument about this. Plus, the Core 2 Duos, and especially that E4300, overclock like crazy, if you're into that:

    Every generation a ridiculously overclockable bargain chip is born, and the Core 2 Duo E4300 is just that chip...The best part of it all is that the E4300 is a no-compromise core...the E4300 doesn't set any new overclocking records but at the price it's a true bargain...Compared to Intel's other value offerings, mainly the existing Pentium D lineup, the decision is clear. With the E4300 at $163 and moving down to $133 by Q2, cheap no longer means NetBurst. Intel is planning on significantly ramping its dual core presence this year, and with the E4300 available as a part of the lineup we can see exactly how. If you're building a Vista system early this year and want to do it efficiently, Intel is going to make it even cheaper to do.

    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2903&p=8

    And it's nearly $50 cheaper now than when that article was written.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member somebodeez's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2002
    Location: Here
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono
    Originally Posted by somebodeez
    I wouldn't necessarily say nobody should upgrade to a Pentium D...
    I would. The Pentium D Presler 3.2GHz is $94:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116262

    The Allendale Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8GHz is just $20 more:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115013
    Well in that case, I'd say there's no reason to settle for a Pentium D.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member ntscuser's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2003
    Location: United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    The difference in price of the PC which I purchased is $100 (50) but it's a moot point as the supplier did not have any Core 2 Duo's for sale at the time I placed the order. (He does now).
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads