VideoHelp Forum




+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. I HAVE A 800MHZ AMD
    128RAMS.

    WHAT HARD WARE WOULD I NEED TO UPGRADE SO MY ENCODEING BECOME FASTER. BECAUSE IT TAKE TO ENCODE A DV MOVE WITH HIGH RESOULATION AND BITRATE ABOUT 9HOURS.

    THANKS
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Search Comp PM
    I guess, that you want to keep you settings, so the only way to make it faster, is to get more CPU power.
    Changing the resolution from 720x480 to 352x480 is another option. It still looks good, and the encode process is a lot faster.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Search Comp PM
    just checking to see what all the shouting was about...
    Quote Quote  
  4. <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
    On 2001-07-02 12:29:00, Truman wrote:
    I guess, that you want to keep you settings, so the only way to make it faster, is to get more CPU power.
    Changing the resolution from 720x480 to 352x480 is another option. It still looks good, and the encode process is a lot faster.
    </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

    720x480 is not good, it makes for a hell of alot of macroblocks, 352x480? thats whacked, is that even XVCD? use 480x480, its a bit faster than 720
    Quote Quote  
  5. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    352X480 (576 for pal) is CVD, the china's version of SVCD.
    It is full compatible with SVCD
    Also, 352 X 480 (576) is half DVD resolution, a dvd non commercial format, for homemade porpuses.

    480X480 is NTSC SVCD with mpeg 2 or NTSV XVCD with mpeg 1.

    Using 352 X 480, is in a way more compatible with homemade DVDs, in a theoritical base. Using 480 X 480 you may have more trouble in theory....
    Quote Quote  
  6. First, make sure that logging to file is disabled. Creating a logfile increases the encodingtime enormously.

    There are also som templates for Tmpgenc out there that claim (probaly rightfully) that they produce better quality mpg's, but they are slower.

    Following this reasoning, it should also be possible to tweak the original template to be a bit faster, and thus produce an mpg with lesser quality.

    After that CPU speed is the key.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    hitmandj,

    Thought I'd jump in too.

    I agree with Truman. Use 352x480 during caps.
    If you source is in good condition, that is. To me, good condition
    is satalete, while cable is better than nothing, but seems to produce
    more blocks/grains. If you're doing home-made videos, well, then...
    you have another options (for anyone)-:
    a - buy a good:
    b - learn how to NOT move your video cam so much
    c - stop using ZOOM while moving/panning around area
    d - Lighting!! very important!! Not enought light, and you have
    the grainy affect - at least in my video's they do.

    I have a video cam, but not with a stabalizer. (about 3 years old)
    I know that if I leave my camera on tripod most scenes come out
    looking really good - nice and clear. But, I'm talking about direct
    captures, not taking videos and recording to tape, and then later,
    caping them to AVI.

    Well, the above was my 4 cents worth.

    ------------------------------------
    DC10+ Samples (some Hauppauge too)
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!