1 Hour Encode vs 50% Transcode

[subferno]

Would it be correct for me to assume that a 1 pass Encoding in DVDRB would take about an hour? I have not used RB before so I am just guessing.

Well, whatever the answer is, would a 1 pass or 1 hour Encode be better than a 50% Transcode by DVDShrink or Nero Recode for it to fit on a DVD-5 disk?

I would like to start encoding my DVDs instead of transcoding but I dont want to spend too much time on encoding and so I am just setting a hard limit on myself.

Thanks

Specs:
WinXP SP2
AMD 64 3000+
1.5 RAM

[guns1inger]

Encoding time depends on length of video to be encoded as well as other factors.

The question you need to ask yourself is why are you doing this ? If it is to produce backup copies of a high quality that you will enjoy watching, why set an arbitrary timelimit ?

If you don't are about quality, transcode. It will probably look better than a single pass encode in most circumstances, and if you are setting timelimits like one hour per disc, then you obviously don't have time to experiment.

Personally, quality is top of my list, and 2 - 3 hours to do a 2 - 3 pass encode (longer for longer films) is a small price to pay for a decent outcome.

[manono]

Hi-

It partly depends on the encoder you use. CCE is fast, and the others are slower.

And I'd never recommend doing a 1-pass VBR or CBR encode. Very silly idea if you want quality. I guess you mean VAF generation plus a real pass after that=2-pass. So no, 1 hour isn't very realistic.

[subferno]

Thanks for the replies.

Transcoding has been really good to me with the time it takes to process my DVDs. I am actually hesitant to try something else unless it will yield better results in an acceptable time frame.

Lets just say that I am taking baby steps right now.

If 1 pass isnt recommended then how about 2 pass with standard configuration? How long will that take?

[manono]

I have no idea why (not just you) the concern with time. Do it overnight. Do it before you leave the house. Quality often takes longer. I assume you still have a standard CRT interlaced TV set. What happens when you get a larger screen HDTV, and some of those Shrink transcoded DVDs look like garbage. You going to do them all over again? May as well do it right the first time.

There's nothing wrong with Shrink for some movies, assuming you're not compressing too much, and the Movie has "overhead" for further compression. A lot of movies aren't like that, though. And in my opinion, even 2 passes (VAF+1 more, if using CCE) isn't enough. But I may be in the minority as far as that goes.

[guns1inger]

I find with CCE that 2 - 3 passes is enough. If more is required you are trying to put way to much on the disc and fighting a losing battle. On my machine I can do a 3 pass (vaf+3) encode using CCE in around 3 - 4 hours for a 6.5 - 7 GB source using DVD Rebuilder.

[subferno]

Thanks again for the responses. I will consider all of your advices and see how it will fit into my plans.

[slimpickins]

i carnt bare to do a 2-3 hour copy,when i backup dvd's i normally do quite a few, id rather backup a dvd in 45 mins than 3 hours, plus a 3 pass isnt even that much, not that i download them but on torretn sites dvd's have 6-7 pass,

e.g, i have 8 new tv boxsets i bought the other day and to back up 48 new disks taking several hours a disk it would be stupid,

i say dont stress or waste time on back-ups, if they look good on a big plasma then great, if not, find a tv they look good on, either a small lcd or a big crt,

ALSO the new hd players and many non hd (i.e cheap) dvd players have up-converting on them which work great,

u only get distortion cos u are blowing up raw dvd data onto a big screen but up-converters digitally ad all the extra resolution so ur not just blowing up the picture

besides in 5 years when the code is cracked on hd/blue ray disks and prices lower ul start again and ur bad back-ups will give u a good place to start

[slimpickins]

let someone beat that overwhelming universal advice for deciding quality dvd-backups

[lordsmurf]

50% of what? Why do people not understand that a % of nothing is worthless?

Are we talking 50% of 10080k with 192k stereo audio on a documentary about snails? Or are we talking 50% on 2000k with 5.1 surround DTS with dash cams from NASCAR racing?

Unless all specs are noted, conversation is totally worthless.

[manono]

let someone beat that overwhelming universal advice for deciding quality dvd-backups

Your advice is so bad as to be beyond worthless.

up-converters digitally ad all the extra resolution so ur not just blowing up the picture

You have no idea what you're talking about. You want to back up TV boxsets with Shrink? And they stuff so much into those TV series box sets that getting good results from a real encode is difficult, much less from a transcode. Be my guest. I'm glad I don't have to watch them.

[slimpickins]

im telling u, ive backed up with 1 click copy taking 45 mins and ive doenaq 7pass with dvdrb and cce and i saw no visable difference, ive watched them on a 54inch tv andi saw no difference, there was one seen that dvd-rb made a difference but it was only 4 seconds of pixalation

up-converters convert to native resolution so it doesnt just increas ethe size, i.e when u double the window of a file on ur computer it gets worse

its funny manno how u say my point is wrong cos i provide no information when u urself dont provide any information as to why im wrong, thats completely hypocritical, do u even read what u type

[vhelp]

Here is my two-cents worth on the subject, though maybe a little OT..

From what I have observes "over noticing" video imaging on large screen
tv's is this.. they all basically do some form of TEMPORAL filtering
across frames (fields) weather to aid in "de-interlacing" or "IVTC", they
all pretty much look alike in terms of expresssion of artifacts.

But, this is actually not such a bad thing after all. As long as *the*
video source is as clean and artifact-free to begin with, then all you
will notice is "floating grain" (or sand) which is not so bad to look at,
when up very close. I don't mind seeing dancing grain on a large screen,
just so long as the video image is being reproduced with greatest detail.

Now, take a video source and give it to a user to re-process into a 2nd
generation MPEG, and you have some problems.

Most of todays videos that users (members) here re-process, are in the
common practice of low-bitrate transcoding or re-MPEGing. These low
bitrate help to exagerate the dancing grains, but this time, with added
pixelation or macroblocking. The mistake (the way I see it, from my own
expereinces) is the perception of bitrate vs. time vs. dvd media size. I
mean, people archive 2 hours or more video onto a 4.7gig disk, and they still
(to this day) call it good video. IMHO, this is just a low quality archive.
Putting 2 hours or greater onto a 4.7gig disk is going to make your first
steps into large screen tv terratory a poor start to a new common practice
of expectations and assumptions in terms of what quality is, from these
large screen tv's.

I have long since given up on VBR and low-bitrate encoding because I have
seen too many of my encodes result in pixelation or macroblocking. Sometimes,
in many cases, you don't (or never) notice it until someone points it out
to you, or you finally *ADMIT* to it, to yourself.. "my disks suck".

Actaully, it's not that they suck, its just that your approach is wrong, and
the notch has been turned up, greatly. That "notch" being large screen tv's,
and the "approach" being VBR low-bitrate, to be used on a 2 hour or greater,
video re-MPEGing, and onto a 4.7gig disk. In other words, *still using the
same process* but now being seen on large screen tv's.

As I was saying.. I have long since given up on VBR and low-bitrate MPEGing.
The MPEG Encoders out there today for the home-user just dosn't cut it for
the sources we have today and the mediums they be played on and watched by.
And multi-passing is, IMHO insuficiant at best.

Thus, if you truly want the maximum quality from your re-processed video sources,
then you simply have to make a few changes in your process.

One of those changes (in my process) has been with the mode of encoding I
use. I went from VBR, to now, CBR. And, I use a high bitrate, tipically at
9000 bitrate. I set my audio minimum'ly, to 192k. Audio is not much concirn
on mine, since it mainly comes from captured sources, anyways.

And, the reason for this type of setup is, I plan my video process with 1 hour presentation in mind. A 4.7gig disk can hold 1 hour of video at CBR 9000 bitrate
and 192k audio. Course, you can tweak this accordingly. But, I pretty much
stick to this script, mostly because it works for me very well.

But, if you ultimately must fit a 2 hour or greater, video onto a 4.7gig disk,
then you must expect that it will not look satisfactory later down the road,
say, when you get a larger screen tv. This is your comprimise, though you
did not "officially" state it.

-vhelp 3917