Low Cost Hardware for Xvid encoding

[WildParadise]

Hi, i'm seeking some help to build a pc for xvid encoding. I'm gonna use handbrake h264 video, mp3 audio. 2 passes. This software is pretty much the only one i found to be complete. I get high quality avi with fixed final size and multi-audio track. (to keep my dvd languages).

I want to convert my entire dvd collection which is about 750 movies. I never watch them because i'm too lazy to find the movie and put it in the dvd player. But i do watch these movie at the tv when i record to the pvr so i'm pretty sure i'm gonna watch more of my collection once converted.

Right now i got a little sempron 3400+ with 512 ram, built in video on windows xp. I calculated about a year and a half to convert every thing with about 12 hours of encoding a day. Which is way too long. I've tried with my mbp and get 175+ degree after 1 hour encoding. (This cpu will die after a week). I'm looking to reduce this to at least 9 months (more is even better) with the lowest price.

The only "valid" information I got is tomshardware cpu chart which show me that it could be up to 3 times less with a q6600 cpu versus my great sempron.

What I need to know as I wanna save money and that i didn't found yet is: will the ram and/or video card makes a difference?

Because i'm looking to build a q6600 with either xp home/vista ultimate (looking more at vista because i think it got a better multi-core handling). I don't have xp pro and that would be an extra fee that i don't wanna spend. With vista i'm looking to put 2gb of ram with board integrated geforce 7150.

I'm ready to put money on ram and video but i need to know if it's gonna make a great difference.

[Soopafresh]

What I need to know as I wanna save money and that i didn't found yet is: will the ram and/or video card makes a difference?

No. You do need enough RAM to run Windows - 1GB would be good. I just bought 2GB for $65

XP is absolutely fine. No need to go to vista

The Q6600 is a great chip for encoding. Use plenty of fans in the computer.

[redwudz]

Yes, I would go with XP for your purposes. No advantage to Vista for this. Multiple core use is a function of the motherboard and the programs, not the OS, at least with XP and Vista. XP works well with 1GB of RAM. No real advantage to more for encoding. Two or three hard drives would be good. Keep your video processes on other than the boot drive.

Your video card won't really have any function with Xvid/Divx encoding. It's for playback. I would suggest Divx Pro for a codec. It makes good use of multiple cores. But Xvid can work also. If you use '1-pass quality based' mode and a setting of about 3, should be fairly fast. A setting of 2 will give you close to original quality, but with a larger file size.

I settle most times for about a 1GB file size. The quality seems sufficient to me, but you need to arrive at your own preference. Lately I've been using FairUse Wizard for easy DVD to Divx/Xvid conversions. It also does X264 encodes, but they take a bit more time. But they also make smaller file sizes for the same quality as Divx/Xvid. Although if you want set top player compatibility, I'd use Divx/Xvid. AutoGK is also popular for DVD to Divx/Xvid conversions.

[WildParadise]

If XP can handle a quadcore I would go for xp and 1 gb of ram for sure, i wanna use xvid because i've tried divxpro with both my pc and it crash on both. Tried divx pro 6.4 (legal) 6.5 and 6.7 on different software and they all crashed. (When putting high quality output for same filesize, i'm looking at 1500kbps which should give me 1.2-1.5gb files with 2 audio track).

For compatiblity i'm still thinking if I would put all this in an htpc (which would be the computer i'm building to save money) or my ps3 with an external drive like the mybook world edition 2 which is 2 tb. I've already tried and the recent ps3 firmware reads xvid and divx pro with multi-track and I was able to change my language.

Seeing what you guys are saying me, only the cpu is really working when encoding, if someone have other ideas about the hardware or tips for software tweaking go ahead. Keep in mind that to save time and enconding I use handbrake which allow me to choose various high quality option and multi-track support. With other software I would have to encode separatly my audio and merge it after or only merge it after as I've seen with one software.

[jagabo]

Divx is faster than Xvid at default settings and at the fastest settings (used only for realtime video capture). I don't think I've ever had Divx crash (I've used many versions) while encoding. I do much more with Xvid though.

If you don't need files of a specific size (like 700 MB to fit on one CD) encode in target quantizer mode. Select the quantizer you want (quality level) and encode in a single pass. The video will come out to whatever size is needed for that level of quality.

If you use Xvid on a quad core CPU be sure to get a multithreaded version and set the number of threads to 4 or you'll end up using only one thread. Divx automatically determines the number of threads to use.

[WildParadise]

sorry about my second post, i'm using h264 that use multi-core processing.

And for divx pro, I did finish an encoding in default but at highest with both mac and pc, with about 4 different program it always crash. So.. divx pro is out.

I'm encoding same settings at 1 pass and 2 pass to see if i can save a pass. Still looking for great tips. As I said, were talking about 750 encodings which is VERY long so I want the best price setup before starting to invest time and money.

[Soopafresh]

Well, the bottom line is, the more cores, the faster the encode. There's a piece of hardware out there, a USB h264 accelerator, but I haven't used the thing

http://www.adstech.com/products/RDX-160/intro/RDX-160_intro.asp?pid=RDX-160

Review isn't the best

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/ads-tech-instant-video-to-go-h264-video...r-accelerator/


What I don't know is whether you can take advantage of it with standard software, or whether you'll need to use the encoder included with the USB device.

Here's a test performed on H264 encoding and CPU types: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic336716.html?highlight=x264

Results : http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442&pgno=0#Results

[WildParadise]

i don't like they say h264 with the hardware but not with the comparison, might be divx or other.

I like the thread on cpus and h264, but for that i know the best price-performance is the q6600, and will go for that all the way.

By the way, can I rent your mac pro? got couple encoding to do.

[jagabo]

Most h.264 encoders are well multithreaded so a quad core CPU is definitely the way to go.

Looking at that review of the ADS Tech hardware h.264 encoder a Q6600 will be much faster. From the review:

To create a 320x240 High-Quality 30FPS video - what we’d expect most iPod-only videos to use - from the same 145-minute source, it required 1 hour and 15 minutes on our older machine - about half the video’s run time. Making a 640x480 High-Quality video required 2 hours and 51 minutes, just a hint longer than the original run time.

Obviously, conversion time will depend on the settings used and the particular video, but just for a quick comparison I ran a test encode with x264 on my Q6600 (single pass, CRF, mostly default settings). 320x240 23.976 fps ran about 7.5x realtime (~180 fps). A 640x480 23.976 fps encode ran about 2.5x realtime (~60 fps).

[Soopafresh]

Yeah, I think the Q6600 is the ideal CPU for price and performance.

[jagabo]

Of course, putting together a new computer around a Q6600 will cost about 10 times as much as the ADS RDX-160!

[WildParadise]

i'm gonna read more on that but i'm septic. First on the webpage it says nstant Video To-Go video transfer accelerator is the first hardware H.264/ AVC SD conversion solution for consumers, transcoding your videos for easy play back on portable media players.

Review quote:

There was only one problem with the output, specifically the Apple TV output. Something’s wrong with Elgato’s high-resolution encoder settings, because unlike the 800 pixel-wide video we created without Turbo.264, the unit’s higher-resolution video was heavily corrupted with desynchronized lines (deinterlacing issues), as shown in the first of the two pictures below. While slow-moving images and audio synchronization looked fine, any quick motion in the video caused the image to decompose, which it didn’t do in the unaided iMovie HD conversion, the second picture below. Because the source images are so large, our samples include crops of how the details look up close; suffice to say that we would never want to create videos that looked like these do in motion.

Mac version:

Even though the same file was converted much faster when the Turbo was utilized, the end result looked much worse compared to the QuickTime encoded file. The problem with the quality was probably because Elgato offers no way to select the bitrate of the encoding.

I don't wanna convert standard I want high quality. Also, avc bring my 1.5gb file to 2.5gb for the same video bitrate. So if it ever works i'm gonna have less quality because of these two factor. But I will probably gain time.

I'm looking for a great quality, I don't wanna take my dvd each time because i don't like what I see.

I'm looking to near 1.5gb files (1500kbps) because hdds are gonna up the price even with the ads gizmo at the best quality i can get for a good price.

Also to save a great amount of time I need to use handbrake as it convert both language directly, so I need to be able to use it with this hardware.

Quote for elgato mac(presume same for ads):

there are no options in Elgato's software, so the only work around is to decrypt the DVD using stream processing to only copy one audio stream, or demux the movie and mux it with the audio stream you want.

[WildParadise]

This project is failing more and more.. Tried 2 movies with handbrake pc and mac, tried avi h264-mp3 and all crashed just like divxpro in my other softwares. Tested in mp4 h264-ac, succeeded one pass but quality is not near what i want.

I'm testing 2 pass mp4 h264-aac on the mac and 2 pass avi xvid-mp3 on the pc.
Will test avi 2 pass h264-ac3 in case it's the mp3 that mess everything.

What's the magic trick? I really want this project to work out.

[WildParadise]

seems i'm gonna have more testing to do after, i've started to look at redwudz software (finally ) to realize it might be a very good alternative if the encoding complete.

Will do some testing with these software right after my 3 tests here. Hope this is gonna be the magic trick.

Edit: AutoGK tested, not enough option. Scratched.

[John]

I think what you are doing at the moment is fine. Im also doing exactly the same, just never worked out how long it will take me to back up my collection, as im starting with the ones I watch a lot.
handbrake using h264 was the best quality i could find, its also slow, i didnt see a big jump until i went quad, takung about 40 mins a movie.
divx xvid are a lot quicker, but i also see a big difference in quality, h264 is a lot sharper. also divx xvid, is not using 100% of my cpu, only using 50% of it, but still very fast.
As of yet I havnt came accross a hardware solution. so the best you can do a the moment is get a quicker cpu.

[jagabo]

Tested in mp4 h264-ac, succeeded one pass but quality is not near what i want.

One pass what? Constant bitrate? That will give lower quality than 2-pass variable bitrate at the same average bitrate. I was suggesting one pass constant quantizer or constant quality. With these you pick the quality and you get whatever bitrate (file size) is necessary for that quality. If the quality of the output was too low you need to select a higher quality. Note that the quantizer you select is the inverse of quality -- use a lower quantizer to get higher quality.

CQ is the flip side of VBR encoding. In VBR encoding you select the bitrate and the encoder gives you whatever quality it can for that bitrate. With constant quality encoding you select the quality and you get whatever bitrate is needed. When the bitrates match the quality is about the same. In short, VBR gives you constant size but variable quality. CQ gives you constant quality but variable size.

You will find that every video is different. The bitrate required to maintain quality varies from one to the next. Here an example I posted for someone a while back:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic349367.html#1837447

Both files are encode with Xvid at the same quantizer. One turned out 1 kbps, the other 67,000 kbps. You are dealing with sources that are more constrained (DVD) so you won't get as wide a variation. But you will easily find that some movies require twice the bitrate of others. Since you don't know which ones need more bitrate before a lengthy 2-pass encode it's easier (and faster) to just decide on a quality level that's acceptable to you and encode in a single pass.

Edit: AutoGK tested, not enough option. Scratched.

I don't use AutoGK but I know it has a lot of hidden options. Accessed by hitting the function keys, I believe.

all crashed just like divxpro

It sounds like there is some kind of problem with your computer. Or, if you are using a particular source for all your testing, maybe something wrong with that file.

[WildParadise]

Finished my testing (except fairuse) So far mp4 h264-aac 2 pass seems fine. With the software i get i got for quality i got size (calculated kbps) kbps and % of quality.Got a hint what would be a good percentage to test? 2 hours movie to give 1.5-1.6gb.

For divxpro, when I say crash, acutally the encoding stop, it won't advance anymore. Like I say, I tested on about 4 software, a mac and a pc, tried 2 sources both on dvd and iso. It's too much variable to be the problem.

Edit: I forgot 3 version of divxpro also.

[WildParadise]

Started new test, testing one pass constant 65% quality h264-aac on mac and testing fair use which works with quantizer, trying h264-mp3 with 26 which seems to be 50%.

[jagabo]

Constant quantizer 26 will probably be too low quality for you. Try 20 to 22 instead.

[poisondeathray]

Did you consider just getting a few hard drives? You can get a 500GB HD for about $95. You'd need 7 or 8 to fit 750 DVD-5

Perfect quality. No waste of time or energy. Even old PC systems can playback MPEG-2 VOB's - the same can't be said about x.264.

If you are planning on using using 1500kb/s, you will need about 3x500GB HD anyways for storage - so that is a sunk cost. Really you are getting an additional 4 HD. This is cheaper than buying a new system.

[WildParadise]

john, you used h264 mp4 or avi and what quality you choosed? what cpu you got? 40 min is pretty good, i assume 1 pass.

[WildParadise]

750 dvd5 is more than 3 tb, let's say 7x 500gb, 700$ and I gotta find a pc that I can fit 7hdd. I've seen 1tb for 200 (3 stores), it will be about the same price but easier to fit in a pc. It will cost about the same amount to put 1tb hdd in my tower and put the vobs but I'm planning to constantly grow my collection so it would be better to convert as I would get big problem of space with the vobs. I do have a about 50-75 dvd9 also.

The big reason that I would build an htpc with a q6600 is that I need to convert my 750 movies and it takes 2years and a half with my current pc doing 12 hours a day encoding (need to sleep and work, can't push the mouse everytime). I hope to get to about 9 months encoding with the q6600.

[John]

using handbrake with h264, aac audio at 160, and video of 2200, average bit rate, one pass. anamorphic PAR ticked. giving me good results, a film is usually coming out at 1.73 gigs, for an hour and 45 mins.
but i am running a quad core phenom, but even om my old dual core 5600, i was still getiing not bad results.
the time factor isnt important for me just good results, but like i said before, i hadnt sat and thought it might take a few months to get a good collection on my drive.

[WildParadise]

pratically what I did but I did 1500kbps, wonder if 2200 would be that much different, with 1 pass 1500 it was easy to see the square compression. With 2 pass 1500 barelly see them, very barely. I gonna put that on my list 2200kbps. I'll try that also.. man that's a lot of testing

I thought about the phenom which was about the same price but the higher wattage and lack of hdmi 6xsata board was killing the deal. I'm lookin in a case with 3x80mm fan and 2x92mm fan right now to survive all the encoding.

[John]

I ended up having to get a new graphics card that supported hdmi, my last motherboard supported it so was a bit of a bummer. the 2200 was just in case, i was getting very good results at 1900. but to avoid the extra time for two pass encoding, i just used a higher setting

[WildParadise]

graphic card with hdmi + the board cost me more than a board with hdmi, that's why, I wanna save all I can.

I'll try 2000 then.

[WildParadise]

For some update, i've finish testing mp4 h264-aac, 65% quality 1 pass. File is too big 2.1gb for 1h45m, quality wise, unfortunatly i don't know, my source wasn't very good so i cannot tell much different, should be good. Anyway, as file size is too big i'm retesting with 50% quality with a better source after testing a 2000kbps encoding. Fairuse on the pc is still running for now with the quantizer...

[John]

I stopped the constant quality to, files where to big. but reducing the % wasnt helping, the quality wasnt so good.
if your testing like this, you should try to use the best quality possible, somthing you know looks real good

[WildParadise]

yeah, i've change for a recent dvd9 movie, pretty much the movie i've used all along but it's 2h10 min, so i tried the other movie to save time. Seems I wasted some time

[WildParadise]

Fairuse with q26 just finished, 486mb, you can imagine the quality.. gonna pump it up to 16 to see the difference. More testing..