Most / less CPU-demanding encoder?

[Gew]

Well to start with this isn't even about DVD->computer but since there's no particular board for old VCR->computer (through tv/composit reciever PCI card) I had to drop it here. Besides, I think this question would be answered the same way even if it concered DVD's ;p

Well, like the topic told you..
What encoder will use the least CPU? When I capture my VHS tapes without using any codec at all I get a completely lag-free output result. Then I tried the XviD codec, the first seconds was a bit laggy but then it got "almost" smooth. So I got curious about the technical aspects..

What result will I get by using the WMencoder? More/less lag?
DivX (Pro)? About the same as XviD I guess?

Oh btw I'm on a kinda slow system 1.7GHz@Intel P4 / 512MB PC2100 DDR so that's why I need to be so cautious when selecting encoding etc..

[Krispy Kritter]

During your "lag free" test, what was the output file type? mpeg, avi, other? Whatever it was, that was the default codec for your capture card and the codec which you would most likely get the best results. You can always reencode to a different format later if needed.

[celtic_druid]

For XviD, try the realtime profile. There is a huge scope for speed vs. quality in modern codecs like XviD.

[jagabo]

Divx's fastest setting is nearly twice as fast as Xvid at it's fastest setting.

[celtic_druid]

Got some benchmarks? Nero Digital or libavcodec are probably the fastest ASP MPEG-4 encoders though.

[redwudz]

Gew, you need to explain what you want to do? What is the end product? Is it DVD for a player or MPEG for the computer, or Xvid or Divx for a Divx player or again, a computer?

If you are thinking about AVI format, look into PICvideo codecs for capturing. For a end product, Xvid or Divx. Neither are that fast for capture as they take a lot of CPU power. Better for encoding.

If you want high quality capture, Huffy UV is good, but takes a lot of space on your HD. PICvideo takes less.

If you want to end up with a DVD, either will work. But both will require an encode to MPEG at some point.

The fastest program to encode may not give you the best format for what you want to end up with.

[jagabo]

Got some benchmarks?

Was that addressed to me?

Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 1GB DRAM, Xvid 1.2.127-25022006, Divx 6.1, VirtualDubMod 1.5.10 (fast recompress), 90 second VOB file (AC3 audio disabled), 720x480 23.976 fps, single pass target quantizer = 2, i-frame interval 100, h.263 matrix, no B-VOPs:

Xvid realtime profile: 36 seconds, 54MB output AVI
Divx fastest: 26 seconds, 57MB output AVI

Ok, so 2x was an exaggeration.

Note that running at these settings neither Divx nor Xvid is taking much advantage of the dual cores. A non HT 2.8 GHz P4 was slower but showed about the same relative difference.

Results with a different video (not to be compared with the above results) with some other codecs that the OP might find useful:

Xvid, quantizer 2, realtime: 48 seconds, 56MB
PicVideo MJPEG Q=19: 20 seconds, 124MB
HuffYUV: 22 seconds, 530MB
Lagarith: 51 seconds, 296MB