So frustrated! DVD Rips -> [anything] with Quick Sync = choppy.. sometimes

[s_mack]

Hey, thanks for that! Good info. Makes sense.

- Steven

[s_mack]

Although... isn't the vertical frame size determined by the movie's director? The DVD is 720 horizontal - that's a given. DVDfab is just cropping the black bars off the vertical. So if I force it down I'm further cropping, and if I'm forcing up I'm adding black space... is that right?

[jagabo]

Although... isn't the vertical frame size determined by the movie's director?

Yes. Or the DVD producer, who may change the AR.

The DVD is 720 horizontal - that's a given. DVDfab is just cropping the black bars off the vertical. So if I force it down I'm further cropping, and if I'm forcing up I'm adding black space... is that right?

Yes. You can leave some of the black bars, crop a little more away from the picture, or resize.

By the way, I suggest you compare your Quick Sync encodes with some software encodes. Quick Sync doesn't produce the best quality. x264 with the veryfast preset is about the same speed (single pass CRF mode) and produces better quality.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/828-1/h-264-encoding-cpu-vs-gpu-nvidia-cuda-amd-str...-and-x264.html

[s_mack]

about the same speed? Really?? I'm getting under 4 minutes for a full length feature! I thought that was pretty damned fast. But I'll check out that link and report back, thanks.

- Steven

[s_mack]

To my shocking surprise, Handbrake with the equiv "verfast" preset (I found out HB doesn't support x264 presets but found a page that lists them anyway) is actually slightly FASTER than Quick Sync.

However, I disagree that the quality is better. It is difficult to compare because I have to play one, then go and find the same scene and attempt to remember how it just looked, etc. But I'm fairly confident in saying that the QS encodes that I came up with (AFTER A TON OF TWEAKING) are slightly superior to the software encodes (AFTER ALMOST NO TWEAKING). Also, with QS I have about 7% CPU utilization and I can even play 3d games while encoding. With handbrake, the utilization is up around 80%.

Still, I thank you very much for the suggestion! I think with some tweaking, I'll have two options at my disposal that both work and have their advantages depending on the situation.

Cheers.

- Steven

[jagabo]

Load the two videos side by side in two instances of an editor like VirtualDub. Use a screen magnifier to zoom into the images. You'll see the QS encode has lots much more detail.

[poisondeathray]

Load the two videos side by side in two instances of an editor like VirtualDub. Use a screen magnifier to zoom into the images. You'll see the QS encode has lots much more detail.

typo? lots = "lost"

[s_mack]

Will do. Thanks again for the help.

I'm satisfied with the quality of my files for my purposes, but going forward, of course, I'd like the highest quality possible/reasonable.

[jagabo]

Load the two videos side by side in two instances of an editor like VirtualDub. Use a screen magnifier to zoom into the images. You'll see the QS encode has lots much more detail.

typo? lots = "lost"

LOL. Yes, "lost".

[RabidDog]

You have been "had" by the qwikSink hype. Qwiksink is a portion of the CPU (not actually in the GPU) given over to media conversion. BUT the problem is it has to be utilised by software conversion programs. It seems so far that none of the programs that use it take any real care about quality, it's really aimed at fast, dirty conversions for portable devices with lower res, where the quality drop off will not be noticed. Your needs for good/high quality will only be met by slower 2 pass software encodes.
Maybe at some point in the future QS will be better utilized, but the "pure" software encoders are getting faster and better anyway, as are the CPU's. CUDA and APP accelerated encodes are just as shitty as QS,(anandtech reviewd) but the raw horsepower of your CPU will stand in you good stead.
Your choppy encodes are probably down to you playing BF3 while encoding