In using BDRB to shrink and back up my Blu-rays I have enabled this and it seems to be working pretty well and in a decent time frame. BUT... I read some conflicting comments on Doom9's BDRB thread where some swear by it and always use it and yet the developer JDobbs has expressed some disappointment with it.
Now 2 things I've read that using this filter is SUPPOSED to do: 1 it is supposed to utilize the 64 bit x264.exe which SOUND good. And 2 it is SUPPOSED to utilize your 4 cores better. However, I've read some other negative comments.
I am running Windows 8-64 bit with a decent quad core and 8 Gigs or RAM. Should I just leave it on this setting using the internal LAVF encoder (which BTW defeats your being able to choose the Config option 'MULTIPROCESS=X' where you tell BDRB to either to determine how many process threads or you set it to use however many cores you choose.) OR should I turn that off and set my Config option to 'MULTIPROCESS=1' to allow BDRB to choose that.
I am really confused about this. For what it's worth, it SEEMS like with the LAVF setting that my encodes are pretty fast overall...
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
My experience is that the internal LVAF sometimes helps to get rips re-encoded when not using it leads to errors that terminate the program. Note that I said "sometimes" and I did not say "a lot of the time".
I know absolutely nothing about whether this utilizes a 64 bit X264 or not. I find that it makes no appreciable difference in time spent encoding whether I use it or not, but I now always use it just because in some cases, as I said above, it makes encodes work when they fail without it.
If you are pleased with the results you get then I would ignore comments on Doom9 about the value of the internal LVAF. You do need to understand that a lot of JDobbs' followers are insane. Complete and utter whack jobs. Doom9 used to be a great website but I gave up on it years ago. Can't say I care much for the general attitude on the whole site although JDobbs himself is OK.
I never mess with multiprocess settings and as I have said here more times than I care to, I have little sympathy for the "That took 10 minutes to run. That's just insane!" crowd for whom nothing is fast enough. You can just run your encodes while you sleep or while you're away from home (You do actually leave your home from time to time don't you?) but if that is insufficient for you and saving even one minute on the encode times is going to mean the difference between life and death for you, then you need to get help from somebody other than me.
I've used both a good deal. Each time a new version of BDRB comes out, you gotta do the setup routine again (subs, working files location, like that). So I just pick one.
Like jman, I've had occasion to switch to LAVF when BDRB has taken a dump. But that has happened so very rarely, only maybe two times (?) over several years, that it doesn't bear much thinking about.
As to a difference in speed, I have a hunch it varies with the source. Meaning that just when I've convinced myself LAVF is a little faster, I get a slow encode in the ~2x area. So I uncheck LAVF and sure enough, the encode is faster, ~3x plus. Or vice-versa. But I've only bothered doing that a couple times, and IIRC, a really significant speed difference only happens when the decoder is reading a VC-1 source. Note that my six-core CPU almost always runs a few percentage points off 100% when encoding, with LAVF on or not. With the exception of the odd VC-1 disc occasionally.
This is not to belittle your question, and sorry for the non-answer.
Last edited by fritzi93; 9th Sep 2013 at 09:16.Pull! Bang! Darn!
I've been using the LAVF setting since it was first offered. Haven't run into any issues with it. But I don't worry about the time spent encoding either.
Hey, thanks guys for all the truly helpful answers (YES, even yours Fritzi ) That's good then; I basically figured that it is neither fully good or bad to use, but my encodes seem to go well, so I suppose I will leave it as is. I AM glad though that none of you has any REALLY negative things to say about it.
That's funny what you say about Doom9 and the crazed acolytes of JDobbs JMan; I think you have commented on that before and I think I agree I'm not really goofy about encode times to that extent. If I do a Blu-ray that is roughly say anywhere around 30 Gigs or less, to do the entire disc with fast xtras usually only takes about 1 1/2+ hours. And I always keep the HD audio (Heh, you should hear what JDobbs says about that! he says it's a 'placebo' and blind tests show no difference. Uh huh... Well, I have been an avid Audiophile for over 30 years and I can tell you that on my simple but good system I can hear ALL the bloody difference between HD and AC3, let me tell you, but I just smiled and nodded when on the forum) One thing that I DO do now since it doesn't really take much more time and it makes me feel a little better that I am getting reasonably good quality, is that I go ahead and uncheck the 'One-Pass ABR' and allow it to do a 2nd pass. It honestly only takes about an hour or so and I'm hoping that it might polish it a bit more. Everything always looks great no matter what though on my 50" Plasma. If the Blu-ray is like 26 Gigs or less, I just go ahead and allow it to do one pass since the target size is a BD-R or about 23 Gigs, so I'm sure it does fine.
The way they talk about the x264 codec on the Doom9 BDRB thread, you would THINK that they all have altars in their back yards upon which they regularly offer virgins in ritual sacrifice to it It IS frankly amazing though how well it compresses with such high quality!
Thanks again for the input; it really helps!