TMPGEnc taking up to 24 hours to encode

[Namrepus221]

I'm trying to reencode some AVI's (hour to 2 hours in length) but TMPGE ends up saying that it will take up to 24 hours (I've seen it max out at 96 hours during one conversion)

Is this typical of my PC (My system specs are in my profile) or is there something wrong with the program?

[Wile_E]

Yes that is typical. Even on a 3GHz P4 or AMD64, it take a long time to encode. This encoder is just plain slow. It is because it was written in Delphi, which is not a very good language when it comes to speed. It will need to be rewritten in another language like C++. The author (Pegasys) doesn't even acknowledge requests about making it faster. I got a response back once from them, stating it is because they care about quality over speed. This is a lie. It is because they are lazy and don't want to rewrite it in C++. Maybe they don't even know how to code in C++ or C#. LOL!

There are other encoders out there that give just as good quality, and are way faster...
Canopus Procoder (Express)
Cinemacraft Encoder CCE (Basic)
Mainconcept Encoder

[jagabo]

Some things you can do in TMPGEnc to make it faster:

1) If you need to put less than an hour on a DVD just use single pass constant bitrate. One pass is twice as fast as two pass.

2) Use single pass, constant quality mode. It's twice as fast as 2-pass and the video will have whatever quality you specify. But: you don't know how big the file will turn out. You can monitor the file size as it encodes to get a rough idea.

3) Use the lower Motion Search Precisions. Going above "Motion Estimate Search" or "Normal" will not improve picture quality by much if you're using 2-pass VBR or single pass VBR. It will not shrink the file much if you are using Constant Quality. But using higher settings will really increase the encoding time (by 2x to 4x).

[ZippyP.]

Depends on your settings. Noise filtering will increase encoding time dramatically.

[Namrepus221]

Thanks Wile_E.

I do think that the company should get off thier asses and re do the program in a better language, that is pretty asshollic of them.

[whitejremiah]

Some things you can do in TMPGEnc to make it faster:

1) If you need to put less than an hour on a DVD just use single pass constant bitrate. One pass is twice as fast as two pass.

2) Use single pass, constant quality mode. It's twice as fast as 2-pass and the video will have whatever quality you specify. But: you don't know how big the file will turn out. You can monitor the file size as it encodes to get a rough idea.

3) Use the lower Motion Search Precisions. Going above "Motion Estimate Search" or "Normal" will not improve picture quality by much if you're using 2-pass VBR or single pass VBR. It will not shrink the file much if you are using Constant Quality. But using higher settings will really increase the encoding time (by 2x to 4x).

Mind you, though.....using any of these options can butcher your quality some.....i'd personally go with CCE or canopus personally, havent tried the other program that was suggested yet, though, as i dont really encode to outright mpeg too often...

[aedipuss]

come on guys. it might not be a tmpgenc problem at all. his system and hard drive set up may just be the culprit. there really isn't much difference in speed between a good cq_vbr tmpgenc encode and a 9 pass cce encode.

[guns1inger]

Anyone who goes more than 3 (+ analysis) passes in CCE is an anal-retentive lunatic. 9 passes requires electroshock therapy and a long holiday in a small room with soft walls

[Namrepus221]

Well he might be right. I'm only running 512mb of RAM on my PC because my Mobo can't handle any more. Atleast I don't think it can.

I'm still riding my dad because he just had to get the cheap board with onboard video, ethernet (which is totally hosed), and no AGP.

It's a M810D board. If anyone can tell me the max memory specs for it or tell me where I can find some, please do. I hate having barely enough RAM to run stuff.

[dphirschler]

I do think that the company should get off thier asses and re do the program in a better language, that is pretty asshollic of them.

It's best damn encoder there is quality wise. I'll put up with the speed. When/if you upgrade to a 3.0 Ghz machine your encode times will dramatically change.


Darryl

[FulciLives]

Well he might be right. I'm only running 512mb of RAM on my PC because my Mobo can't handle any more. Atleast I don't think it can.

I'm still riding my dad because he just had to get the cheap board with onboard video, ethernet (which is totally hosed), and no AGP.

It's a M810D board. If anyone can tell me the max memory specs for it or tell me where I can find some, please do. I hate having barely enough RAM to run stuff.

I use to run TMPGEnc Plus on a P3 650Mhz with 256MB RAM running Win98 then later upgraded to WinXP Pro. I found that the system ran OK with 256MB RAM although 512MB RAM is often touted as the "optimal" amount of RAM for running WinXP with more than 512MB providing little benefit. So I don't think you need more RAM per se.

That system I used was just barely fast enough for me to do analog video capture using a BT based capture card. I would capture PICVideo MJPEG (at the 19 quality setting) and 16-bit 48k Stereo PCM WAV audio. I could do Full D1 (720x480 NTSC) captures this way (also did some PAL VHS captures at 720x576).

I would then convert to MPEG-2 DVD spec with TMPGEnc Plus. A 2-pass VBR encode would take anywhere from 36 to 48 hours for a normal 90 min. to 120 min. movie.

After playing with TMPGEnc Plus for a while I quickly learned to use CCE and AviSynth which is much faster.

So my suggestion is to get CCE BASIC which last I checked is only about $58.00 U.S. Dollars. Do bare in mind though that CCE pretty much requires the use of AviSynth which can be a bit tricky to get used to but it's not as difficult as it may seem at first and Avisynth with CCE is going to seriously speed things up for you.

Even now on my current P4 3.2Ghz computer I barely ever use TMPGEnc Plus due to the slowness of it not to mention other "issues" I have with it (for instance it uses the RGB colorspace whereas CCE uses the YUV/YUY2 colorspace which is more "video friendly").

Oh and one more thing. My old P3 650Mhz had AGP video built-in to the motherboard (Intel chipset) but it was only like 8MB or something "silly" like that. It did have a slot for a video card upgrade but only a PCI slot (not an AGP slot). I found it ran better with an upgraded PCI video card (I used an ATI RADEON 7500 model which had increased RAM on it ... I think it was like 32MB or 64MB I forget now but it was much more than the built-in 8MB AGP video). Now note that the video card really doesn't affect video encoding time (nor quality) but the video card upgrade did improve performance overall with everything else.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Oscar wallace]

Well I have a AMD duron 1.3 and a 2 hour film takes between 6-11 hours in TMPGE encoder depending on which template/setting and avs script Im using.

[Wile_E]

I do think that the company should get off thier asses and re do the program in a better language, that is pretty asshollic of them.

It's best damn encoder there is quality wise. I'll put up with the speed. When/if you upgrade to a 3.0 Ghz machine your encode times will dramatically change.


Darryl

No the times do not drastically reduce with CPU speed increase. The encoder remains the slowest of all of them. I have a AMD64 3200+, 1GB PC3200, 7200RPM HD's, etc. TMPGEnc still takes overnight (8+ hours) to encode a 2 hour DV-AVI file to MPEG2. This is WITHOUT filters, and 2-pass, and Standard search precision. CCE is almost real-time on my system, encoding a 2-pass 2 hour DV-AVI to MPEG2 in about 2hr30min. Major speed difference.

Yes it is a problem with the Delphi language that was used to compile TMPGEnc. Delphi is known to be slower than if you compiled something with C++/C# or ASM optimizations. The advantage to using Delphi, is that it is easier to code for some people, like Visual Basic.

[smearbrick1]

With TMPGENC I have never experienced encoding times like that. When encoding to MPEG2 from an XVID (something I've only done once or twice) my encodes are faster than real time. When encoding to SVCD to from DVD quality, my encodes are just a bit slower. An hour long movie takes about 1 hour or less.

I'm seriously thinking it may be your system.

[TBoneit]

M810D is that the board with CPU already mounted and a name such as Pro1600?

That is the MB used and packaged with Durons already mounted and called pro xxxx, I seem to recollect the pro 1600 was aduron 1.2Ghz...

OTOH the same brand is also sold with no CPU mounted and could have a Athlon 1.6 on it.


Wile_E: Using one pass in TMPGEnc 3.0 Xpress I typically start it at midnight and in the morning 4 videos are converted to 4 DVD ready to author files that look good to my eyes. I then Author the 4 DVDs and burn.

SO I'm curious what TMPGEnc you are using?

Cheers

[Namrepus221]

Thanks for the help guys.

CCE is a good program.... but honest to god I find it to be the worst program I've ever used for these purposes.

I've read the guides to it, and I can't make hide nor hair of how to use it.

It's simply too difficult for someone of my limited converting skills to do.

If there was a better guide out there that showed you how to get stuff done like shrinking the file size to fit on a DVD, or something to ensure that the video DOESN"T output to 720x480 (I've tried it with 3 video files that are 16:9 and I can't figure out how to have them be letterboxed like I need them to be)

If anyone here would be willing to help me figure out how in the heck to use this program properly, I'd be eternally greatful. But until such time, I'm going back to TMPGE.

[DRP]

I'm trying to reencode some AVI's (hour to 2 hours in length) but TMPGE ends up saying that it will take up to 24 hours (I've seen it max out at 96 hours during one conversion)

Is this typical of my PC (My system specs are in my profile) or is there something wrong with the program?

No this is not typical despite what some others with an axe to grind against TMPGEnc are saying. I have the same spec computer as you only with a slightly faster CPU clock speed of 2Ghz instead of 1.6Ghz and I regularly do the same 90-120min AVI conversion encodes that you're doing. They take my computer typically ~6hrs to convert and that's while I continue using the computer for everything else. If I walk away and stop using it, it'll be < 4hrs to encode a 2hr movie in AVI format.

You need to post what settings you're using in TMPGEnc to tell why it is going so slowly. There are settings you don't need which can slow things down dramatically for no visible benefit whatsoever so tell us what you're using AFA settings and we'll have a better chance of diagnosing the problem.

[DRP]

With TMPGENC I have never experienced encoding times like that. When encoding to MPEG2 from an XVID (something I've only done once or twice) my encodes are faster than real time. When encoding to SVCD to from DVD quality, my encodes are just a bit slower. An hour long movie takes about 1 hour or less.

I'm seriously thinking it may be your system.

Yeah I'm with ya. Wile_E has got some sort of a problem because I don't even have half the computer he's got and there's nothing I could possibly do to make TMPGEnc run as slow as he claims without employing completely idiotic settings. He claims 4x realtime speed for a single pass motion search estimate encode with no filters on a weapon of a computer with 1GB RAM!! Horseshit! If I had that computer TMPGEnc would be doing those same encodes in half realtime speed.

[ZippyP.]

No the times do not drastically reduce with CPU speed increase.

I beg to differ. Doubling your CPU clock will halve your encode time. As far as hardware is concerned, the CPU is the dominant factor which controls the encoding speed.

[DRP]

Thanks for the help guys.

CCE is a good program.... but honest to god I find it to be the worst program I've ever used for these purposes.

Yep, exactly. As someone said you basically have to be an Avisynth guru to be able to even make CCE do something very basic. CCE is just an encoding engine. For it to be actually useable (like TMPGEnc is) you need additional programs to process the file before sending it to CCE for the actual encoding. All that functionality is built into TMPGEnc whereas it isn't with CCE.

[Namrepus221]

I'm trying to reencode some AVI's (hour to 2 hours in length) but TMPGE ends up saying that it will take up to 24 hours (I've seen it max out at 96 hours during one conversion)

Is this typical of my PC (My system specs are in my profile) or is there something wrong with the program?

No this is not typical despite what some others with an axe to grind against TMPGEnc are saying. I have the same spec computer as you only with a slightly faster CPU clock speed of 2Ghz instead of 1.6Ghz and I regularly do the same 90-120min AVI conversion encodes that you're doing. They take my computer typically ~6hrs to convert and that's while I continue using the computer for everything else. If I walk away and stop using it, it'll be < 4hrs to encode a 2hr movie in AVI format.

You need to post what settings you're using in TMPGEnc to tell why it is going so slowly. There are settings you don't need which can slow things down dramatically for no visible benefit whatsoever so tell us what you're using AFA settings and we'll have a better chance of diagnosing the problem.

Settings? What these "settings"?

ok enough joking.

ok Settings.

DVD NTSC
CBR set to MPEG-2
Aspect Ratio set to 4:3 NTSC
Video Resolution: 720x480
Video Bitrate: 4036 kbps
Audio Bitrate: 384 kbps
Audio quailty: 48000 Hz Stereo
123 minutes long

[jagabo]

What is your Motion Search Precision?

[DRP]

DC component precision?
Motion search precision?
Filters?

These are the things that *really* affect encoding speed. Also, since your source is AVI have you considered testing SVCD resolution on DVD to see if your DVD player will play it okay? The format is called DVD-SVCD and you'll find that most DVD players these days will play it just fine.

From AVI source there is no visible difference in quality between full D1 resolution and DVD-SVCD yet DVD-SVCD resolution will cut about 1/3 off the encoding time since there are 1/3 fewer pixels to analyse. From typical AVI type sources you'll find that DVD-SVCD resolution is usually also the closest to your source size, so the required resizing will be least with SVCD resolution than with either 720/704 or 352 sizes and hence least distorted.

[Namrepus221]

What is your Motion Search Precision? Motion Estimate Search

DC component precision? 9bit

as for "Filters" I've never used them and don't know how to either. So the answer is None

As for the DVD-SVCD thing. I have no idea how to set that up with TMPGE so I really can't test it.

[ZippyP.]

Also, since your source is AVI have you considered testing SVCD resolution on DVD to see if your DVD player will play it okay?

I would never recommend SVCD resolution for a DVD as many players will not accept it and in North America most will not. If a lower resolution is wanted then use 1/2 D1 which is 352x480 (NTSC) or 352x576 (PAL).

[rhegedus]

No the times do not drastically reduce with CPU speed increase.

I beg to differ. Doubling your CPU clock will halve your encode time. As far as hardware is concerned, the CPU is the dominant factor which controls the encoding speed.

I agree. I've used TMPGEnc on four Intel based systems and once drew a rough graph of encoding time vs processor speed - it's pretty much a straight line. My P4 2.23 is just over 3x faster than my P3 700, and my P4 2.8 is approximately 4x faster.

Hence, I'm not itching to build a new PC with a fast chip since the difference over my P4 2.8 won't be worth the £.

[DRP]

What is your Motion Search Precision? Motion Estimate Search

DC component precision? 9bit

as for "Filters" I've never used them and don't know how to either. So the answer is None

That being the case there is no reason I can see for why you have such slow encoding other than another application running on your computer at the same time which is taking up most of the computer's processing time.

As for the DVD-SVCD thing. I have no idea how to set that up with TMPGE so I really can't test it.

https://www.videohelp.com/dvd

DVD-SVCD
is basicly a SVCD authored on a DVD. DVD do not supports the SVCD resolution but it may anyway work and the audio has to be resampled to 48 khz like the DVD-VCD. Read more here how to make a such and download a DVD Sample including a DVD-SVCD here.

[DRP]

Also, since your source is AVI have you considered testing SVCD resolution on DVD to see if your DVD player will play it okay?

I would never recommend SVCD resolution for a DVD as many players will not accept it and in North America most will not. If a lower resolution is wanted then use 1/2 D1 which is 352x480 (NTSC) or 352x576 (PAL).

Outside of yankland virtually every player will handle DVD-SVCD with no trouble at all. Indeed in all the players I've tested (and that's a lot) only two have failed to stretch the image out properly. Both were very old (at least 6 years) Pioneer units which also had trouble with DVD+R discs and DVD-RW discs of either + or - persuasion. The american market must be speshul or something. I can't imagine why but it sounds like America gets specially crippled hardware for some reason.

[Namrepus221]

Yeah I know the ammount of other programs can influence how slow the encoding can go. I barely run programs over night but It'll still take 9 hours and up.

The SVCD thing would more than likely take just as long, plus there's no guarentee that it would encode the way I want it to on atleast one project (Video is 16:9, and I want it to maintain the aspect ratio for subtitles as well as preserving the video's original view)

[ZippyP.]

Outside of yankland virtually every player will handle DVD-SVCD with no trouble at all.

OP lives in "yankland" and I'm in North America too.