Whats the fastest video encoder?

[groggit]

Which video encoder is the fastest? I'll be mainly converting DVD (.vob) to MP4, DivX to MP4 and AVI to DivX. Thanks in advance!

[redwudz]

It would depend on what codec you are using and, of course, the settings used. Xvid seems a little faster than Divx, but I can't prove that. For MP4, it would depend again on the codec and settings used. I can tell you H.264 seems to be one of the slower codecs, but that's the price you pay for higher compression.

For MPEG, CCE seems to be the fastest, at least compared to TMPGEnc, which seems to be one of the slowest.

[psxiso]

from my expereience, DVD convert to XVID using AVI.net is the fastest.
Avi.net + XVID = Better Quality than DIVX 6.4
Avi.net + DIVX 6.4 = Faster than XVID but quality not as good as XVID, XVID look more clear, while DIVX look cloudy.
I test a 4 minute video, DIVX faster than XVID by 3 minutes, but XVID is smaller by 20MB compare to DIVX.
I choose XVID because it look better and smaller in size.
Compare AVI.net to AutoGK, AVI.net is faster.

For MP4, I think NERO Recode do a pretty good job, the speed is faster than any tool I have used before and the result is pretty good.

[groggit]

Thanks!

[jman98]

For what it's worth, in my opinion at this time Xvid is not really any better than Divx 6.4 and I don't think Divx 6.4 "looks cloudy". You may want to do your own comparisons though. If somebody prefers Xvid over Divx, that's OK, but I just want to point out that this is very subjective and you may or may not think one is a lot better than the other. This comment is not directed at psxiso, but in the past a lot of people here tried older versions of Divx when it clearly was not as good as Xvid and they closed their minds at that point to the idea that Divx could ever be as good as Xvid.

If you want speed, don't use any version of H.264/X.264. Keep in mind too that faster rarely = better quality and my experience has been that in the video world, the faster something works, usually the worse the quality is.

[mikeo1313]

Whats the fastest way to to convert mov to avi or wmv9 and convert other movie files of the same format (avis & wmv) but just to change resolution and maybe sound format.

I have some programs that I'm using (Xilisoft Video Converter & ALO video converter) and I can batch convert for viewing on my creative vision... but the quality sometimes varies and takes a horrid amount of time...

Thanks for your suggestions

[redwudz]

You might try SUPER.

[celtic_druid]

DivX and Xvid aren't the only ASP MPEG-4 encoders either. There is libavcodec, Nero Digital as well as others.

Also DVD could be remuxed to mp4, DivX to mp4 and avi (depending on the content) to DivX. No time wasted re-encoding that way.

[ktjensen]

DivX and Xvid aren't the only ASP MPEG-4 encoders either. There is libavcodec, Nero Digital as well as others.

Also DVD could be remuxed to mp4, DivX to mp4 and avi (depending on the content) to DivX. No time wasted re-encoding that way.

So what are the REMUX tools that are available versus the RE-ENCODE tools?

I know that 90% of the people out there will never realize that REMUX and RE-ENCODE are two completely different processes. People will start getting into arguments about how long it takes them to change video format (transcode), never realizing that a REMUX tool will get you done very fast.

[ktjensen]

For what it's worth, in my opinion at this time Xvid is not really any better than Divx 6.4 and I don't think Divx 6.4 "looks cloudy". You may want to do your own comparisons though. If somebody prefers Xvid over Divx, that's OK, but I just want to point out that this is very subjective and you may or may not think one is a lot better than the other. This comment is not directed at psxiso, but in the past a lot of people here tried older versions of Divx when it clearly was not as good as Xvid and they closed their minds at that point to the idea that Divx could ever be as good as Xvid.

.

XVID versus DIVX is subjective. But playback on stand alone DVD players with the resulting files, is not subjective. On my stand alone player a DIVX encoded file (latest version) plays really terribly. But when I play (again stand alone player) the exact same video source using an XVID encoded file it looks flawless.

If you keep everything on your original desktop system, you should have no differences noticed. Except speed to encode, and resulting file size.

[ktjensen]

You might try SUPER.

I will try SUPER also. Just need to make sure I make a system restore point before I install it.

[mikeo1313]

You might try SUPER.

SUPER is about the BEST conversion prog eVER... ITS UNBELEVABLY FAST.... and can convert from and to anythng.... Thanks redwudz!!

[hilario]

You might try SUPER.

SUPER is about the BEST conversion prog eVER... ITS UNBELEVABLY FAST.... and can convert from and to anythng.... Thanks redwudz!!

I dont know why but everytime I try super something is wrong !!
Fist I have problems to resize the program !! It seems it is too big for my screen resolution.

With last version It's better but I dont see any start button when I want to start a convertion !!

What am I doing wrong ??

[jagabo]

In my experience the current releases of Divx and Xvid are similar in quality. Xvid may be very slightly better but not enough so that it matters. On a Core 2 Duo processor Divx is much faster. Three times faster at the codecs' default settings, about 30 percent faster at higher quality settings. On my computers and standalone Divx/DVD players both look the same. I use AVISynth and VirtualDubMod (or VirtualDu) to convert to Divx/Xvid AVI.

Some examples of encoding rates:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1696170#1696170

Nero Recode has fast encoder but it produces MP4 files which few set-top players can play.

[theewizard]

a little carification

remux vs re-encode/transcode

remux works if the source codec and output codec are the same and your are only changing the container format ( ext )

an avi with mpeg4 to mp4 with mpeg4

mp4 with xvid codec to avi with xvid codec

AFAIK
you cannot remux if going from avi with DviX codec to MP4 with mpeg4 codec, that is a transcoding operation

ALSO any change in resolution or bit rate is a transcode/re-encode operation

[snowbound]

In my experience the current releases of Divx and Xvid are similar in quality. Xvid may be very slightly better but not enough so that it matters.

If it makes the video I am watching look better, how on earth does it not matter? I don't get that.

[jagabo]

In my experience the current releases of Divx and Xvid are similar in quality. Xvid may be very slightly better but not enough so that it matters.

If it makes the video I am watching look better, how on earth does it not matter? I don't get that.

If you have any other reason to prefer one over the other (for example the fact that Divx is 2 to 3 times faster than Xvid, or the fact that Xvid offers finer control over many settings) that will likely outweigh the tiny differences in picture quality.

[jagabo]

AFAIK
you cannot remux if going from avi with DviX codec to MP4 with mpeg4 codec, that is a transcoding operation

The MP4 container can contain MPEG4 part 2 (same as Divx and Xvid) or MPEG 4 part 10 (AVC, h.264, x264). So you can remux Divx from an AVI to an MP4 container.

[theewizard]

maybe i mis-understand the term CODEC or the term Container

just because the container can house different codecs makes it very useable BUT remux does not change the codec only the container

changing the CODEC is transcoding NOT remuxing

so my understanding is if you change the codec the files is encoded with from Dvix to mpeg4 you are transcoding NOT remuxing

please enlighten me on the similarities AND differences between transcoding and remuxing

[jagabo]

maybe i mis-understand the term CODEC or the term Container

just because the container can house different codecs makes it very useable BUT remux does not change the codec only the container

changing the CODEC is transcoding NOT remuxing

so my understanding is if you change the codec the files is encoded with from Dvix to mpeg4 you are transcoding NOT remuxing

please enlighten me on the similarities AND differences between transcoding and remuxing

I think you understand the difference between remuxing and transcoding.

You originally said "you cannot remux if going from avi with DviX codec to MP4 with mpeg4 codec". Your usage of "MPEG4 codec" is ambiguous. Divx and h.264 are both MPEG4 codecs, just different parts of the MPEG4 spec, ASP vs AVC.

[Livingonvideo]

Normally I wouldn't have bumped such an old thread, but maybe things have happened since 2007, and my question is similar to that in this thread.

I want to capture video from several video players connected to the same PC (both Sony Digital8 Handycams connected to Firewire, and super-VHS players with internal TBCs connected to Ezcap USBs). I want to store the captured material with minimum strain on the computer (file size is not a problem), and convert it to .MP4 later.

Considering it will eventually be stored as .MP4, what format and settings would you experts recommend that I store it in the first time?

TV system: PAL

[Cornucopia]

First, threads that old should stay dead. You should have started a NEW thread.

Second, many encoders have gotten faster (assuming same PC horsepower baseline), but CUDA-enabled encoders (those that use GPU accelleration) are orders of magnitude faster. Wasn't so common back in '07. Very common now.
HOWEVER, it does NOT mean they are better. In fact, they usually are somewhat worse, because they "cut corners" on the math.

Third, whatever you are doing, IMO, you are doing a major disservice to the quality by using one of those EZCap devices. End of story.

Scott

[jagabo]

GPU encoders are not orders of magnitude faster than CPU encoders. When GPU encoders are reviewed they typically compare GPU encoding to CPU encoders at very slow settings. That's why the GPU encoders appear so fast. But, for example, x264's peformance varies as much as 100 fold from its slowest settings to its fastest settings. At the veryfast preset on a quad core Intel CPU x264 is faster than Nvidia and AMD GPU encoders, a little slower than Intel's GPU encoder. And at the veryfast preset x264 still delivers better quality than any of the GPU encoders. If you have an old slow CPU and don't care about quality you may be better off with a GPU encoder.

[Cornucopia]

Fair enough, and probably I agree with you. Though I think that's quibbling in regards to what I was trying to summarize to the threadjacker.

Scott

[Brad]

Third, whatever you are doing, IMO, you are doing a major disservice to the quality by using one of those EZCap devices. End of story.

Have you tested one of them?

[Hoser Rob]

... what format and settings would you experts recommend that I store it in the first time?

Perhaps the worst threadjack ever.

Not only are you asking a question that doesn't have that much to do with the original question in the thread, that's a question that's been asked on a ton of threads you could have searched.