what is the most compatible video container to convert my files to?

[WuxiIxuw]

I forget to mention that I tried both vidcoder and handbrake and when i use the exact same setting for frame size and audio and video bit rate and exactly the same setting I've found that vidcoder finish encoding more faster a lot.

[ricardouk]

... when i use winavi to encode and set bitrate for audio to 96 and video to 512 and encode the same file with vidcoder and set audio to 32 and video to 300 .. I end up with a better quality using vidcoder far better then winavi.

Good

1) Does there is any way to make it encode faster?

its fast over here on my dual core, have you tried using the 64bitversion on your windows 7 64 pcs?

2) Also how can I set the encoded file to be with the same name of the original source file instead of using the alternate title the vidcoder suggest?

go to OPTIONS--->FILE NAMING

[WuxiIxuw]

1) Does there is any way to make it encode faster?

its fast over here on my dual core, have you tried using the 64bitversion on your windows 7 64 pcs?

Just to make sure that I understand the fast term correctly, if you are encoding a 10 minutes file using default settings, how much time does it takes with your computer, and in case I am using i7 2600k sandy bridge and using the 64x what should be the time variance?

2) Also how can I set the encoded file to be with the same name of the original source file instead of using the alternate title the vidcoder suggest?

go to OPTIONS--->FILE NAMING

Ok, I will check it, Thanks.

Regards,
WI

[ricardouk]

just tested it with a 720p mp4 file, a 2m and 40s video took 57 seconds to convert (2 pass) down to 640x360, i cant help with how long it should take on your system, but handbrake is "multicore ready" so it should be faster

i suspect winavi is faster because its probably only doing a 1 pass video conversion and thats why you get awfull quality and faster encodes.

[WuxiIxuw]

Please if I have a sound and video synch issue?
i.e. the sound sometimes is start before the video and other time start after the video, how to fix such a thing?

[WuxiIxuw]

2) Also how can I set the encoded file to be with the same name of the original source file instead of using the alternate title the vidcoder suggest?

go to OPTIONS--->FILE NAMING

It does not use the same file name of the original source file?, how can I do so?

[WuxiIxuw]

just tested it with a 720p mp4 file, a 2m and 40s video took 57 seconds to convert (2 pass) down to 640x360, i cant help with how long it should take on your system, but handbrake is "multicore ready" so it should be faster

i suspect winavi is faster because its probably only doing a 1 pass video conversion and thats why you get awfull quality and faster encodes.

I am sorry did not realized this reply.
Well, I think it is fast then with me if this is your result with your processor.
Regards,
WI

[ricardouk]

can you share some samples? pm me if you cant share it on a public forum. a short 5m sample

[WuxiIxuw]

can you share some samples? pm me if you cant share it on a public forum. a short 5m sample

Ok, wait please.

[WuxiIxuw]

- edited -

[WuxiIxuw]

- edited -

[ricardouk]

i think you misunderstood what i said, can you share samples... source samples? i want to do some tests aswell

[WuxiIxuw]

i think you misunderstood what i said, can you share samples... source samples? i want to do some tests aswell

You mean to upload the source .mpeg-2 file?
Or you mean the encoded .mp4 file?

[ricardouk]

source samples

[WuxiIxuw]

source samples

Here it is

[ricardouk]

about filenamig:
if you save your file on a differente folder and using default naming settings the name will be the same.

about sync issues:
just tested it with your sample and theres no issues here.

about conversion quality:
usse 2 pass instead of 1 like in your screencast, it if faster but if you have size limitations on your server better to do 2 pass. if you're uploading to youtube the crf will be fine.

cant help you much more as my knowledge is also limited, but if i wanted to stream my own files i would 2 pass conversion, my website server has a size limit that way i can plan "in advance".

[WuxiIxuw]

about file namig: if you save your file on a different folder and using default naming settings the name will be the same.

I've found a solution for it by using File=>Enqueue=>Then select as multiple files as want, so this way I've found it use exactly the same file name with no issues at all.

about sync issues: just tested it with your sample and there no issues here.

Good news then I think it may be my mistake or a mis configure for something, I will make sure of settings once again.

about conversion quality: use 2 pass instead of 1 like in your screen cast, it if faster but if you have size limitations on your server better to do 2 pass. if you're uploading to YouTube the crf will be fine.

After trying with one pass or two, I've realized it does not consume a lot of extra time, so I will follow your advise, and will check the box for turbo 1st pass as well.

cant help you much more as my knowledge is also limited, but if i wanted to stream my own files i would 2 pass conversion, my website server has a size limit that way i can plan "in advance".

We do not have any size limitation issue, as the server of any given contract will be expanding according to needs.

Really thanks a lot and too much appreciated.

[WuxiIxuw]

I've realized that during encoding using the vidcoder that the cpu is consuming about 65:72% and sometime jump to 80:81% ... this is according to the gadgets of the cpu in windows 7 and the task manager was reporting the same.
So does upgrading to a workstartion with dual xeon will make it any better?

So please advise.

[Slipster]

Yes I am converting to .mp4 using h.264 with 480*270 (16:9)
and using 300k bit rate for video and 64 for audio.
This is the low quality copy to be watched online on the website but there is another copy with the same frame size but using the default bit rate by winavi which 512k for video and 96k for audio.
Please advise if there is anything still needs to be adjusted.

I haven't read every post thoroughly following this comment, so apologies if this has been covered already, but...

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, choosing 64kbps for low quality and 96kbps for high quality will actually achieve the complete opposite where AAC is concerned with 96kbps sounding subjectively worse to most ears than 64kbps.

Why? Because AAC will switch into HE mode for your 64kbps encode, thus increasing subjective quality at this low bitrate. Increasing the bitrate to 96kbps disables HE mode meaning that your encoding will be in plain LC mode, thus providing much lower subjective quality per bitrate.

Double-blind listening tests carried out in the past have shown that AAC needs at least 128kbps in LC mode to reliably exceed the quality of HE mode at 64kbps, so 128kbps should be the minimum you use if you want it to sound consistently better than your 64kbps encoding rather than potentially worse.

[WuxiIxuw]

Yes I am converting to .mp4 using h.264 with 480*270 (16:9)
and using 300k bit rate for video and 64 for audio.
This is the low quality copy to be watched online on the website but there is another copy with the same frame size but using the default bit rate by winavi which 512k for video and 96k for audio.
Please advise if there is anything still needs to be adjusted.

I haven't read every post thoroughly following this comment, so apologies if this has been covered already, but...

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, choosing 64kbps for low quality and 96kbps for high quality will actually achieve the complete opposite where AAC is concerned with 96kbps sounding subjectively worse to most ears than 64kbps.

Why? Because AAC will switch into HE mode for your 64kbps encode, thus increasing subjective quality at this low bitrate. Increasing the bitrate to 96kbps disables HE mode meaning that your encoding will be in plain LC mode, thus providing much lower subjective quality per bitrate.

Double-blind listening tests carried out in the past have shown that AAC needs at least 128kbps in LC mode to reliably exceed the quality of HE mode at 64kbps, so 128kbps should be the minimum you use if you want it to sound consistently better than your 64kbps encoding rather than potentially worse.

If I got this right, you mean to use Audio Bitrate 64kbps when I choose 512 kbps video bitrate.
And if I go above 512 kbps for video then I should choose 128 kbps for audio biterate, right?

[Slipster]

If I got this right, you mean to use Audio Bitrate 64kbps when I choose 512 kbps video bitrate.
And if I go above 512 kbps for video then I should choose 128 kbps for audio biterate, right?

Basically, yes. For your low quality video encodes, 64kbps for the audio should be fine. 128kbps or above should be fine for your high quality video encodes.

AAC returns much higher quality per bitrate in ABR mode than in CBR mode too, especially at low bitrates, so it's worth making sure that your encoding settings are for a target bitrate of 64 or 128, not a fixed bitrate of 64 or 128.

[WuxiIxuw]

If I got this right, you mean to use Audio Bitrate 64kbps when I choose 512 kbps video bitrate.
And if I go above 512 kbps for video then I should choose 128 kbps for audio biterate, right?

Basically, yes. For your low quality video encodes, 64kbps for the audio should be fine. 128kbps or above should be fine for your high quality video encodes.

AAC returns much higher quality per bitrate in ABR mode than in CBR mode too, especially at low bitrates, so it's worth making sure that your encoding settings are for a target bitrate of 64 or 128, not a fixed bitrate of 64 or 128.

But I make a preset in VidCoder for everything and audio and video bitrate as well.