How long does it ussually take to encode in tmpenc

[toymachines]

i am using sefy's guide to dvd ripping and am encoding using tmpgenc, i have encoded avi before and it has taken 6-8 hours to do a full video. But now it has a projected time of 10 hours for half of it. is it normal to take this long to encode 97000 frames of .d2v?

[Powermanzombie]

The times you are describing are not out of line. It depends on the length of the video, the quality of encoding, the speed of your computer, etc. What I hate is after all of this time, and the resulting VCD/SVCD is either jittery or the A/V sync is off -- I'm a novice, but I'm learning. Good luck.

[toymachines]

thanks

[Sefy]

What is your PC's strength ? I have an Athlon 1000 (not XP) and a 2 hours and 30min movie (Superman in the example) is about 6 hours, although using CCE it will take around 3 hours (near realtime).

[vhelp]

morning toy,

a few things that "speed" depends on:
* cpu type and speed
* length of movie
* movie quality light/dark scenes, (noise takes longer) and dvd source is a bit faster
* RU framserving, and which framerserver, ie vdub or avisynth?? avisynth being faster
* tmpg values settings
* parsed soured?? ie, ivtc, 32pulldown, inverse32pulldn, interlace/de-int.
* RU using filters, how many, and there values or settings R high/low values??
*

toy,
* the more filters u use, the sloser your encoding times, ie, x2, x4 etc.
* framserving take longer due to the overhead involved in the app, ie, vdub,
but using avisynth is a lot faster, AND not to mention, if you don't use
the framserving route, its even that much faster. but sometimes we all need
to use it for certain strengths, bla, bla, bla.

I use vdub, but also avisynth. They both have their weaknesses and strengths.
I can't go into each and label indivually, but you only have to use each
and figure them out for yourselves.

powerman, learn to use tmpg's "source range" settings, this way you can
just encode a few frames, burn to cd (not play on your pc) see how the quality
stands. playing on your pc monitor will give you false judgement, as the pc
monitor is progressive, so you'll never really catch those interlacing or
jittery videos.

I hope these factors help in your next encode!

I have currently, an AMD XP 1700+ (though NOT utilizing it's maximum speed
due to system qurkyness) on an MSI mb, w/ 128mb ram (pc133)
last I checked, for a:
* 1 hour Satallite capture of star trek voyager, too just under 3 hours, using
one filter framserved from vdub to tmpg, to an xSVCD of 352x480 and minus
the commercials.
Also, to note, on my prev. system setup, i ad a T-brd @ 900Mhz and it
took the SAME amount of time as in the above - attribute that spec to
the above "quirkyness".

I am upgrading my 2nd pc's mb and cpu (intel 233Mhz mmx) w/ an:
* AMD XP 1800+
* ESC K7S5A SiS 735 chipset
* 256MB DDR ram
* windows 98 (not SE) I'm not spending another $$ on an OS system.

I'm dying to know how my speed increase I'll get in encoding times via
my current encoding setup and other variations as well. If I remember,
i'll post my NEW results here or elsewhere.

-vhelp

[meandhers]

I encode a 2hr movie in about 2 1/2-3 hrs depending on quality setting.
This is alot better than my previous 12-14 hrs w/ my AMD 533 k6-2. lol
I can take clips and music videos from my capture and do in real time, it's great... possiblities seem endless...

[poopyhead]

on a side note...if u guys decide to use the "adaptive" features of the de-interlace filter, you encode time will jump up by at least a couple hours...for one of my comps, it jumps up by 10 hours...cuz adaptive uses more CPU power to determine whether a scene needs to be de-interlaced or not rather than applying the de-interlace filter blindly on all scenes

but adaptive ends up having slightly better quality than non-adaptive for the deinterlace filters