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.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 77
Thread
-
Life is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker.
-
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. -
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. -
Originally Posted by 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. -
Originally Posted by 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! LOLLife is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker. -
Originally Posted by drtalk
Womble and Ulead products are two. -
Originally Posted by thecoalmanLife is like a game of poker. If you can't spot the sucker after a few minutes...then you ARE the sucker.
-
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 -
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. -
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. -
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) -
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. -
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. -
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 -
Originally Posted by guns1inger
Originally Posted by TBoneit -
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. -
Since then I've used 10-passes for everything and not looked back.
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. -
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! -
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. -
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)
-
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! -
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. -
Originally Posted by TBoneit
-
Originally Posted by ntscuser
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. -
Originally Posted by somebodeez
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. -
Originally Posted by manono
-
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).
Similar Threads
-
Resize and Improve the quality with less time process
By SB4 in forum RestorationReplies: 23Last Post: 31st Jan 2011, 05:13 -
Save Rendering Time--Change VOB to MPG--Set Audio VOB & MPG2 video files
By jake61 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 4Last Post: 5th May 2010, 15:12 -
how to speed up rendering time with HD video
By The Linguist in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 1Last Post: 17th Dec 2009, 05:31 -
Does a better video card improve the quality of video when rendering?
By raysolomon in forum EditingReplies: 8Last Post: 3rd Mar 2009, 20:24 -
Help with rendering time-stretched video
By architectus in forum EditingReplies: 1Last Post: 26th Jul 2007, 14:34