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?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 31
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 23:23.
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.
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.
Thats a good point there jagabo. Also what level of quality is expected out of the encode too.
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
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)
I converted a DVD file which was originally 1.47GB. It is now 632MB & took 1hr 6mins to convert.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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 08:16.
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.
Windows uses all extra RAM for disk caching too.
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 11:27.
I know of a computer in my hometown that could probably encode the bluray of 2001: A Space Odyssey in about 4 seconds
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
I think,therefore i am a hamster.
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.
...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
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.
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.
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.
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.