VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31
Thread
  1. Hi there

    I was just wondering about the length of time all of the newer processors, etc., & how fast people have managed to convert their DVD files to H264?

    I have a laptop with a 1st gen i7 running Windows 8, & am considering the purchase of a new Apple (either laptop or desktop) with i7. I've been debating over the new Mac Pro, but can't justify the cost unless I see a mass improvements in speed?

    I also use my computer for music creation as well as other things such as video editing & various photoshop stuff.

    And so I was just wondering about others on here & their experiences when converting? I'm mostly curious to know about who has seen the fastest times when converting files without compromising quality? I'm mostly curious about the length of time you have seen with DVD5 or DVD9, but feel free to also let me know of your Blu-Ray experience as well?
    Quote Quote  
  2. After ripping to a VIDEO_TS folder (10 to 15 minutes) and building an index file with DgIndex (a minute or two), using an AviSynth script and x264, anywhere from 5 minutes to a several hours depending on the length of the movie, encoder settings, and filters used. I'm running an i5 2500K. A typical movie which doesn't require filtering usually takes 20 to 30 minutes with the x264 "slow" preset. 5 to 10 minutes with the veryfast preset.

    I happen to have a DVD ripped to VIDEO_TS folder on the computer right now, a 110 minute movie. I used Handbrake and the Intel Quick Sync h.264 encoder to make an MKV file. It took 6 minute and 35 seconds.
    Last edited by jagabo; 25th May 2014 at 22:23.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    Whats the exact model of the CPU and the processor speed in your laptop? Example: 920XM 2.0 Ghz or something like that?
    Some mobile processors are only 2 core i7 other are 4 core variety.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Q840 @ 1.87GHZ with 8GB of memory, running 64bit Windows 8. My main HDD is a hybrid SSD, whereas the other is just an HDD. The laptop itself is a Toshiba Qosmio X500.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    A current generation i7 2.4 Ghz or higher laptop CPU would make a noticeable difference. Almost cut those times in half.
    This also dependent on whose x264 encoder your working with but nonetheless an improvement.

    Check out this link

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
    Quote Quote  
  6. Do you realize there's a 100 fold difference in encoding speed with x264 at its fastest and slowest settings? You need to be more specific about what settings you use.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    Thats a good point there jagabo. Also what level of quality is expected out of the encode too.
    Quote Quote  
  8. I've used recommended settings to get the best quality out of my conversions (don't recall where I found them). I did say in the first post that I've gone for quality, so surely the fastest settings aren't going to do anything to improve the quality?

    Here's the Handbrake settings I've used:-

    Video Pane: Video quality set to Constant Quality - RF: 19 (normal profile is 20)
    Picture Settings: Video filters set to Detelecine (Default) and Decomb (Default) (normally off, set these under picture settings)
    Audio Pane: Audio has an additional track of AC3 Passthru
    Advanced Pane:
    Reference frames: 6
    Maximum B-Frames: 5
    8x8 transform: checked
    Adaptive B-Frames: Optimal
    Motion Estimation: Uneven Multi-hexagon
    Subpixel ME: Default (7)
    Motion Estimation Range: 32
    Trellis: Default (Encode only)
    Quote Quote  
  9. I converted a DVD file which was originally 1.47GB. It is now 632MB & took 1hr 6mins to convert.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    I assume thats the usual settings for everything or do you adjust for the content. DVD's do vary in quailty to begin with.
    What is optimal for B&W film thats grainy or a clean interlaced video thats modern or even animation old and modern.
    Since Handbrake doesn't use the GPU or use QuickSync (which I'm not really a fan of), if your willing to spend the money
    to save some time, why not.

    Its your money.
    Quote Quote  
  11. I don't really know too much about what the settings actually do, so I just go with what others have recommended elsewhere. I don't change settings depending on what is on the DVD, but should mention that much of what I have on DVD is TV shows & music concerts that haven't & may not see the light of day on Blu-Ray.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    If you haven't already, check out these links for future reference. That is if your willing to learn and experiment.

    https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/HandBrakeGuide

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC


    Hope this helps you!
    Quote Quote  
  13. I just saw this written elsewhere regarding Blu-Ray conversion. It says "Constant Quality: 22 (2 years ago, after lots of search, most people concluded that 22 was the best for BR while 20 for DVD even thoguh i'm not exactly sure the numbers refer to what)"

    My understanding was that the lower the number, such as 18, was better for the quality?
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, the lower that number is, the quality increases but so does the file size. You just have to keep mind
    that when you encode for your own personal needs its all subjective. If you are satisfied with the results
    that's all that matters.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    Additional note here, I have used numbers from 20 to 16 for DVD's and 22 to 16 for bluray. The first thing I do
    is preview each source first. Then I decide which tool to use that will do the job. It could be Handbrake or VidCoder
    which uses the Handbrake engine with very similar GUI with a few extra bells and whistles. There is Hybrid which is
    more advanced and is a good sort of 'Swiss Army Knife' encoder that does x264 and x265 and others but this one
    does take a little more time to get familiar with (it has a little bit of a leaning curve but not too bad). And I wont forget
    about MeGUI also great for advanced uses.

    I'm always patient when it comes to encode times myself. If its going be a while, I just accept it!
    Quote Quote  
  16. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: AZ, USA
    Search Comp PM
    It takes me about 16 minutes using VidCoder (A frontend for Handbrake) to convert to MKV. That's encoding directly from the DVD disc in the drive. Video filters, Detelecine and Decomb at default. Video: Constant Framerate. CQ of 19.3. AC3 passthrough. All other settings at default. File size after conversion is about 1 - 2 GB.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by redwudz View Post
    It takes me about 16 minutes using VidCoder (A frontend for Handbrake) to convert to MKV. That's encoding directly from the DVD disc in the drive. Video filters, Detelecine and Decomb at default. Video: Constant Framerate. CQ of 19.3. AC3 passthrough. All other settings at default. File size after conversion is about 1 - 2 GB.
    What is your computer specs (i7 Gen 4?)?
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by magnu View Post
    I converted a DVD file which was originally 1.47GB. It is now 632MB & took 1hr 6mins to convert.
    With x264 encoding you'll find that a modern Haswell or Ivy Bridge desktop i7 is two to three times faster than your i7 840QM (or did you mean Q8400?). Even faster if you use Quick Sync.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-31-Handbrake,3164.html

    Handbrake nightly builds have supported Quick Sync for at least six months now. QS quality is lower than x264 at the same file size.

    The settings you're using are somewhere around the slow x264 preset with a little tweaking. The larger ME Range (32 vs 16) will slow it down a bit.
    Last edited by jagabo; 26th May 2014 at 07:16.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2011
    Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Re Macs: while there are pretty good reasons to use them ... I'm actually mostly a linux user and Apples are similarly a Unix derivative underneath ... you wouldn't see a significant speed difference. Especially when encoding.

    If you go that route you may also have to start using a new set of media tools. There was a time when Macs were much stronger in media. But now there are way more Windows tools.

    If you do get a Mac, I'd suggest cramming as much RAM into it as possible. Unix/linux memory management is more sophisticated than in windows. it doesn't leave extra RAM unused. It uses it for disk caching. So having a lot of extra RAM means a HUGE speed differential.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Windows uses all extra RAM for disk caching too.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    Another great possibility for a new CPU are the AMD 8 core processors. A fantastic price performance ratio. But you will
    be limited to Windows or Linux.
    Last edited by Dougster; 26th May 2014 at 10:27.
    Quote Quote  
  22. OS: Win 8
    Ivy bridge I7 3770@3.4 GHz
    HandBrake: 0.9.9.5530 x64. Settings: Normal + Constant framerate + Audio Passthru (AC3 5.1)
    Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1891905/ (it says 93 min on IMDB. However HB says 1:28:24)

    Time 5:05 / 5:03
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    I know of a computer in my hometown that could probably encode the bluray of 2001: A Space Odyssey in about 4 seconds
    or less!

    http://rt.uits.iu.edu/bigred2/

    http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1743321
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date: May 2014
    Location: Down the road, last house on the right
    Search Comp PM
    OK, here is a more realistic comparison, what took my old Dell Core2 Duo (3.33 GHz) to encode a bluray 16 hours,
    my recently built i7 Hexacore 4960X about 90 minutes using VidCoder and using the EXACT SAME settings. Just for
    comparisons sake.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by magnu View Post
    Originally Posted by redwudz View Post
    It takes me about 16 minutes using VidCoder (A frontend for Handbrake) to convert to MKV. That's encoding directly from the DVD disc in the drive. Video filters, Detelecine and Decomb at default. Video: Constant Framerate. CQ of 19.3. AC3 passthrough. All other settings at default. File size after conversion is about 1 - 2 GB.
    What is your computer specs (i7 Gen 4?)?
    Hover over redwudz computer specs icon,it's just below his avatar.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Banned
    Join Date: Nov 2005
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    ok, not to start a flame war but why are people converting their dvd's to h264? first of all most dvd's are interlaced which means you have to de-interlace and quite frankly i have come to the conclusion that any software based de-interlacer sucks, even the much vaunted QTGMC. I wish there was something that could use the built in hardware de-interlacer found in NVIDIA cards or Intel's QS encoder or even better a de-interlacer that could match the quality of the chips found on consumer tv's

    as an example I have FIOS and for those that don't know FIOS broadcasts their HD content in 1080i, the tv i have outputs to 1080p, which means that it's de-interlacing the signal and scaling it, yet the output displayed is excellent. as a test i took an interlaced mpeg-2 blu-ray that I have and ripped it to my pc and tried to de-interlace it using every method i could think of and the result didn't as good as the same blu-ray being played on a BD player hooked up to my tv.

    there's also this reality, h264 is so last year, hevc is starting to penetrate the consumer market and vp9 will be a major factor thanks to google switching over to it by next year for all it's youtube videos, so realistically those that rip and transcode dvd's and blu-ray's to h264 now will probably want to redo the whole think in a year when we have multithreaded vp9 encoders and faster hevc encoders.

    i don't see any reason to go through the hassle of ripping and transcoding a dvd at this point in time and this is coming from a guy that wasted years and loads of hard drive space doing just that since at least 2000.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    first of all most dvd's are interlaced which means you have to de-interlace
    It means no such thing. Yes, all NTSC DVDs output interlaced 29.97fps (actually 59.94 fields per second), but the vast majority of movies on NTSC DVD are encoded at progressive 23.976fps with 3:2 pulldown applied to output interlaced 29.97fps. Nothing has to be done for those when converting to h264 - no deinterlacing, no IVTC, no nothin'.
    ...those that don't know FIOS broadcasts their HD content in 1080i, the tv i have outputs to 1080p, which means that it's de-interlacing the signal
    There's a big difference between how it's encoded/broadcast and what the content is like. For progressive movies and most TV shows where each field pair is identical, no deinterlacing takes place. For true interlaced content, yes, it has to be deinterlaced but I dare say most broadcast material these days is progressive.
    as a test i took an interlaced mpeg-2 blu-ray that I have and ripped it to my pc and tried to de-interlace it using every method i could think of and the result didn't as good as the same blu-ray being played on a BD player hooked up to my tv.
    I'd say that test means nothing since you reencoded the source, so naturally it didn't look as good as that same source played on the TV. In addition, considering the ignorance you've shown in this thread (not to mention others) I wouldn't trust your word that you even did a decent job in reencoding anything. Don't get me wrong - I kind of admire your 'orneriness' in the face of sometimes universal scorn, but you have to get your facts right before stating opinions such as the ones you just made. Or else you will start a flame war.

    Yes, maybe h264 is so last year but until you find streaming boxes with HEVC decoders in them, h264 will continue to dominate. And for the same reason XviD AVIs continued to be mainstream long after they wore out their welcome.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member johns0's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2002
    Location: canada
    Search Comp PM
    Most people re-encode dvd so they don't need to keep popping in dvds when watching tv series,much easier to watch a full season on one blu-ray and h264 will be on top just as people still use mpeg2 for dvd-video.Hevc might just get replaced with better codecs.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    ok, not to start a flame war but why are people converting their dvd's to h264? first of all most dvd's are interlaced which means you have to de-interlace
    No, most DVDs are encoded progressive.
    Quote Quote  
  30. As far as I'm aware most of the other formats deadrats mentions aren't supported by standalone machines. Also, as h264 can do decent quality fo around 1/3rd of the size, it means that for many fans of certain productions can very possibly store an entire series on one disc. It's much easier for storage place, & it also means that there is more of a likelihood that you would be able to play that disc if you take it elsewhere to view.
    Quote Quote