How come i use TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 encode need more thn 30Hr?

[shujuan]

How come i use TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 encode a 50+gb avi to dvd format (m2v, wav) need more thn 30Hr?

Is there other prog can encode more fast but quality is as gd as TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 result

[Baldrick]

30 hours doesn't sound right. how many minute is the video clip? are you using any filters?

Or use Mainconcept mpeg encoder, canopus procoder, cce basic...all faster then tmpgenc plus.

[shujuan]

is a 45min video capture in dvd size format...

did add in one filters...
Hmmm capture in mpeg better or m2v better? as i want my dvd to be clear and nice when isee on dvd player on tv

[MaDmiZe]

Did I read correctly ...this is a 50gb avi file?

Or was that a typo, if not then this is a very large file and I would expect a long rendering time.

[shujuan]

ya 50gb... i capturing a tv show prog after edit it is a 50gb avi dvd format... not yet encode

[Shadowmistress]

ya 50gb... i capturing a tv show prog after edit it is a 50gb avi dvd format... not yet encode

What is that? I know of no avi's that can be burned as dvds.

Why aren't you using some form of compression like a divx codec when capturing? Either that or output as m2v files if your card allows it and set your biterate to anything under 10,000 kbps. Anything above is simply a waste of space.

You're saving uncompressed files during capture and that's why they're so large. Files that size should take 30 hours to encode.

[jimmalenko]

did add in one filters...

Oh goody.

I like guessing games .....


Nup, crystal ball failing. Must ....... ask .......

What filter ?

What did you have your motion search precision set at ? For uncompressed, motion estimate search (fast) should be fine.

Files that size should take 30 hours to encode.

Actually No. If your source is compressed, then your encoding software first decompresses it back to uncompressed frames before re-encoding it. So it's actually quicker to feed it uncompressed from the get-go, thus eliminating the time spent on the decompression of the frames.

[Shadowmistress]

Really? I would have thought that it would just take longer to read a 50 gig file than it would take to read a 1 gig, encoding aside.

But if you say so....

[jimmalenko]

Really? I would have thought that it would just take longer to read a 50 gig file than it would take to read a 1 gig, encoding aside.

But if you say so....

TBH I don't really know ......


To quote krusty:
"I just pulled that out of my .... hey hey hey !!!"

Sounds good in theory though


I just put it into practice, and had two files - both of exactly the same thing, with a running time of 1 minute (1500 frames). One was XVID and was 5MB, the other was uncompressed and was 870MB. The first file took 1:35 to process, while the second took 1:45. So it was slightly longer using uncompressed, but certainly not by any massive amount.

[Shadowmistress]

So I was right, and Mr. Crystal Balls was wrong?

8) Thanks for clearing that up. My respect goes out to you.

Of course, the time difference would be amplified the more runtime and filesize there is.

[jimmalenko]

1 x 1 minute sample on 1 test machine using 1 source doesn't make it universally accepted

[Shadowmistress]

Yeah, but it sounds good in theory though.

[jimmalenko]

Yeah, but it sounds good in theory though.

Touche

[shujuan]

hi

I tot i capture into uncompression mode give the best quality of the video rather than use some compression code when doing capturing.

I last time try some capturing using some compression code the result come out when i see in TV the qulity is not very good.

So this time i try to cap in uncompression and do encoding... (few day i try to encode a short video the quality quite good, so this time i want to encode the whole show but it take abit too long time 30+ to encoder so i ask if there any thing which can shorter the encode time and the quality is good also.)

When i using TMPGEnc Plus I did set to Deinterlace and my motion search precision i set the the SLOWEST . There say it give the best quality so i choose that option

[adam]

It takes a significant amount of processing power to deal with uncompressed files. If the file is large than it will take much much longer than if it were compressed. For this reason its probably best to capture to a lossless codec.

The slowest motion search precision option in TMPGenc is significantly slower than the rest and it probably doesn't help that much. I always use the High Quality (slow) option.

[shujuan]

So i want to ask for advice is there any way to encoder more faster with the quality good also

[adam]

Yeah, lower the motion search precision at least one notch and see if you can tell a difference. I can't and my guess is that most people can't either. The slowest mode is really a pretty extreme setting.

You can also try using another mpeg encoder. TMPGenc is one of the slowest on the market...great quality and price though.

This won't necessarily speed things up but why deinterlace? Are you making a DVD? If so keeping it interlaced will significantly improve the quality....or rather retain what's there.

[junkmalle]

You can also switch TMPGEnc to single pass constant quality mode. That will make it twices as fast as two pass VBR mode.

[shujuan]

Hmm Yes i making a dvd.
I go try out those setting hope i can make it the encoding time faster....

I did try to use other encoder but so far to me i think TMPGenc is the best encoder with user friendly setting..

[shujuan]

I got one more question to ask

What the different between (m2v,Wav version encoding) and Mpg version?

[Shadowmistress]

m2v is just video
wav is just audio
mpg is both together

Check out the glossary for these terms on the left. <--------

[shujuan]

Hmmm which one is better? m2v+wav or mpg?

[junkmalle]

Hmmm which one is better? m2v+wav or mpg?

Neither. Software you use afterwards may require one or the other.

[shujuan]

thank u

[Capt.Video]

You said your TMPGEnc was slow... what bitrate you using, and what resolution?

D1 takes a lot longer to encode than 1/2 D1.

I VERY HIGH bit rate takes longer than what may be needed. 4mb/s for DVD is usually PLENTY. Any more and you cant see any improvment in video quality, but the file size is larger and takes longer to encode.

IMHO, Only TMPGEnc can produce the results that TMPGEnc produces, its the only program I use to encode.

Good luck!
Andrew

[lordsmurf]

Some of the settings you've chosen are not needed. Read this: http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/convert/tmpgenc/tmpgenc.htm

You may want to consider another encoder, maybe Procoder or MainConcept. They lack the advanced set of filters, but the encoders are faster and generally higher quality.