Help! I need to encode 60 hours of video fast ...

[seminarsondvd]

I have 40 productions ranging from 60 - 90 minutes each. Every program is divided into 2 parts, so I have 80 segments I am dealing with, each averaging 45 minutes.

The content is mostly motivational speakers in front of live audiences. Half of them are SD(NTSC) and the other half are HD1080i. I plan to deliver these files via progressive download flash, using Amazon S3 and JW Player embedded in a web page.

The most important thing to me is maintaining the best quality experience to the end user (mostly consumers with DSL, Cable, etc). I would like to offer the end user multiple download speed options. (400, 800, 1200?) Is that the best way to go?

One engineer told me the best way to compress each program is to do it in a few steps. He suggested the first step be to bump down to 12,000 kbps h.264, but keep frame size at 1920x1080. Then the next step would be to bump down to 6,000 kbps h.264 with frame size 1280x720, then bump a third time down to the size we would deliver. Is all that really necessary to maintain best quality? There must be a better way ...

How long would it take me to do all this with one Mac Pro? If I do it myself, what Mac software should I use?

Are there any large scale encoding facilities that could do this job for me fast, and at a reasonable cost?

I've asked several questions here, and responses to any and all are greatly appreciated.

[Cornucopia]

DON'T bump down, then bump down again, etc. BAD MOVE. To get the best possible output (which you said you wanted), *A-L-W-A-Y-S* encode from earliest generation/highest quality. "Bumping down" reduces quality each time.

Also, in the industry, the saying goes, "CHEAP-FAST-GOOD: pick 2". You just asked about other facilities and asked for all 3. Not going to happen...

To get a good estimate of how long this will all take, take a segment of your material and test encode it, then extrapolate.

Example:

Let's say 5 minute representative sample takes 17 minutes to encode (using h.264 2pass with processing/filtering--which is pretty good). That means for each version//length of footage you have, it'll take a factor of 3.4:1.

80 minutes x 45 programs x 3 versions each x 3.4 = 36,720 minutes (give or take), not counting time involved in offloading/uploading etc. This is 612 HOURS. That's 12 3/4 weeks if you were to encode 8 hours a day for 6 days out of the week. Or 25 1/2 days if you encode WALL-TO-WALL non-stop 24 hours a day! And like I said, that doesn't take into consideration the time for saving the files, burning disks, swapping harddrives, uploading, etc.

I hope you don't have a deadline real soon!!!

Scott

>>>>>>>>>>>edit<<<<<<<<<<<<
You can encode on multiple machines/processors and reduce the time involved, but it'll still take some time to either copy to those other machines, or transfer via network, etc. And there's the cost involved in getting more machines. Like I said, pick 2.

[guns1inger]

Every re-encode costs, and when using a lossy codec, it can cost a lot. If you can do it in one hit you will be better off. If you need multiple formats or resolutions then you will be up for encoding the same clip multiple times.

Encoding is, first and foremost, a CPU exercise. Can it be done on a Mac (or any other PC) ? Of course.

How long will it take ? How long is the proverbial piece of string. It depends on the footage, the encoder settings, the codec chosen and the CPU in question. If quality is the highest priority then you should be looking at 2-pass encoding, which will add between 80 and 100% to your encoding time.

I don't know what software would be recommended in the Mac world. Sorenson can do FLV output, and I am sure there are others.

Whatever you choose, you will be looking at between and 60 and 90 hours for single pass encodes from 1080p down to downloadable resolution, and up to double that for higher quality 2-pass encoding.