Faster ways to glue subtitles to a DVD-rip?

[hamsolo]

Isn't where a faster way to add subtitles to a movie then using VirtualDub's frameserver? It seems to take forever.
If where is a faster way how-to-do?
I still have the IFO, the VOBs, the DVD2AVI project, the VFAPI temp avi-file and subs in SRT and SSA
And my result should be 2 VCD's or 2 SVCD.

[poopyhead]

faster way?

i've done 99% of my subs with vdub/vobsub....it's actually quit fast....

granted frameserving through vdub does add to encoding time....but if you have a decent CPU, it shouldn't be much...

[hamsolo]

I have a AMD duron 700 and 256mb ram, but when I rip a DVD first use DVD2AVI to make a D2V file, if I want the subs I rip them. when I use VFAPI to make a file I can open in VirtualDub to add the subs, and frameserve to TMPGenc.
It seems to slow it alot down. And it in "DVDx 1.5" that it used the subs directly from the vobs but the encoding sucked

[Chemcat]

If you're making SVCDs you might try using DVD2SVCD, it now has support for TMPGenc. You can download the program and guides to use it at http://www.doom9.org. It uses and automates some of the best programs for audio,video, adding subtitles, muxing and cutting, and cd imaging. Another nice thing about using DVD2SVCD for TMPGenc using CQ (constant quality)method, when encoding it will sample the video in 40 spots as a test to come up with an average bitrate to fill the number of CDs you select. Pretty slick. It might be a lot faster for you.

From DDog on the DVD2SVCD forum:

"Here is the deal. We all know TMPG is much slower than CCE right? TMPG 2pass vbr does a good job but you could go on a vacation while it encodes. Well actually it turns out that TMPG is not as slow as we thought when it comes to CQ mode. CQ mode turns out excellent quality in one pass that many say is equivalent to a CCE 3 or 4 pass. Some say it is better and some say it is not, but I am not sure anybody can tell the difference. That is close enough for me.

Because TMPG is only using one pass it really does not matter that it is slower than CCE. It's one pass is actually faster than cce doing 3 or 4 passes and remember that a cce 4 pass actually takes five passes due to the creation of the VAF file in the first pass. To give you an idea, Tmpg will do the Matrix, which is 2:15, in about 4 or 4.5 hours on my machine. Add the overhead from the size projection routines and we are still under 5 hours.

The problem has been that it was very difficult, and a bit hit and miss, to project the file size for TMPG CQ mode. Our fearless codehead, DVD2SVCD, came up with a method to do 4 short tests passes using a snip of the movie.

The snip is a composite of frames from the entire movie thus providing an averaging of the frames to be encoded. A test run is done using the composite snip and the resulting filesize is compared to a calculated target that mirrors the amount of disks you have instructed DVD2SVCD to use. The value of CQ is tweaked and the next test pass is done. With four test runs (they only take a few minutes each) the CQ value is continually tweaked until the test run encode filesize reaches the target and that value is used on the full encode. [overly simplistic explanation]

It took him a while, but it seems to be working well now. I did a two cd encode of the Matrix (with overlap) and final file size was only off a few megs on the second disk.

Suggested settings when using TMPG CQ mode:

Bicubic b 0.00,c 0.50
(somebody please try BiLinear and Simple and compare all three please. I am burned out testing)
Max 2496 Min 755
High quality (slow)
No Temporal Smoother "
[/url]

[ironic]

Did you try DVDx?
It can rip subtitles at the same time.

It's popular in Taiwan.
But seems nobody talk about it here? 8)

[herbapou]

"We all know TMPG is much slower than CCE right? TMPG 2pass vbr does a good job but you could go on a vacation while it encodes"

CCE 4 pass VBR is = to TMPGEnc 2 pass VBR as far has speed is concern. But, CCE will give you better quality at the same bitrate. You should always choose motion estimate search (fast) with TMPGEnc 2 pass VBR, slower method wont give much better results and it will indeed bring your Pc to his knees...

multiple pass will always be better than CQ, so I suggest you always use multiple pass over CQ unless you have a very slow machine

[hamsolo]

About DVDx, tried that the result sucked to say the least. It maybe why people doesn't talk about it here
The problem wasn't just the encoding time for TMPG's, the problem was that VirtualDub used 40% cpu and TMPG 50-55% cpu, I just think there could be a better/faster way the glue the subs to the video when using TMPG. So that TMPG could use the 40% cpu more and do the job faster.

[Truman]

Frameserving with Avisynth and the vobsub plugin to TMPG should be about twice as fast as frameserving with VirtualDub.

http://forum.vcdhelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=66009&highlight=vobsub
(little outdated)