.AVI to dvd encoding time(limited by program not processor)?

[bwall244]

I have been using dvd flick to convert .avi's to dvd which i'm used to taking forever on some older machines, however i just built a new machine, amd quad core with 8GB of ram. DVD flick is a little faster, but not by much, and it not nearly maxing out SPU or Memory available. Is the encoding procedure limited by the software itself or am I missing something?

[poisondeathray]

Probably limited by software (CPU usage, not memory consumption I mean) , and poor multithreading

IIRC DVD Flick uses ffmpeg for the backend, but hasn't been updated in a few years (over 3 years)

You can set multithreading in newer ffmpeg builds by using -threads x , so for a quad core -threads 4 . Not sure how/if you can do that in dvd flick

You can try avs2dvd instead, it can use hcenc (better quality than ffmpeg mpeg2 encoder) and will make use of multithreading

[bwall244]

I does as me for number of threads on dvd flick, in which I put 4. All 4 cores show activity but each at 5-10% max.

[bwall244]

As far as I can tell, it shows to be encoding at about 83fps barely using the processor at all.

[Todd Sauve]

DVD Flick has a setting for CPU Priority. Set it to Normal but no higher, or your machine will likely become unresponsive to anything else you try to do.

[jagabo]

A single threaded program will usually show activity on all Task Manager graphs because Windows bounces the single thread around between cores to even out heat distribution. I suspect the MPEG encoder in that version of ffmpeg is single threaded. The number of thread option is for the h.264 encoder. Try changing it from 1 to 2 to 4 and see if there's any difference with MPEG 2 encoding speed. Then try the same with h.264 encoding.

[hello_hello]

Can you run more than one instance of DVDFlick at a time? That tends to be my solution when running encoding jobs which don't tax the CPU very hard.... well at least when I can. I just run two encodes simultaneously.