VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Yesterday I tried to convert a file with Vidcoder, expecting it to do the job overnight, but when I went to see the results this morning I found I had to expect more than two days for the conversion to finish.

    So I wonder if someone who did use it can guide me on a good setup to have a reasonable conversion time.

    Anyone can?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Yeah I'm not aware of Vidcoder taking that long to finish a video. What video are you converting? And to what format? What are your computer specs?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Computer specs are just reasonable. Dual-core Intel. 4Gb memory. Both cores were operating for conversion.

    In this case I was using it under XP, when my previous conversion using Vidcoder had been with W7 64 with same hardware. On that time it took me about 12 hours for a similar conversion. Well, maybe not similar, as the original file was smaller.

    This time the file is a 17.5Gb mkv type, and I'm trying for an 8Gb mkv to fit into a DL DVD.
    Quote Quote  
  4. That's pretty bizarre. While I don't use Vidcoder, I do use Handbrake, which is very similar. I converted a 22.5Gb mkv down to a 1.7Gb mkv within 1 1/2 hours. I honestly don't know why it would take so long. Anyone else want to chime in?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Should I try Handbrake and see what happens?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    You could try it. There shouldn't be a difference given the same settings. Vidcoder is really just a different (easier in some ways) interface for the same encoder. But you never know. I prefer handbrake anyway.

    What encoding settings are you using anyway? When you get into the advanced h.264 options you can seriously increase processing time.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    i've used vidcoder on an old phenom x4 and it only takes....at its longest....maybe 3 1/2 hours...sounds like your dealing with issues maybe running in the background or a really slow pc...all those hours it took to encode your stuff is not a Vidcoder trait...it's speedy.

    Vidcoder is just a Handbrake frontend with a whole heckuva lot more options for encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    PC is not slow, maybe my setup was demanding. As I said I did my first conversion with Vidcoder in Windows 7-64, and it did fine overnight.

    But I didn't touch the original setup on that case.

    I did look for running on background settings and couldn't find any.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Have you run the resource monitor program while it's running? You may have a memory leak somewhere.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Evil_Burrito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Make sure you have the latest. Then go through the setting and turn some stuff off that you may not need, like deinterlacing-deblocking. Or maybe you simply selected "very slow" preset.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Hoser Rob View Post
    Have you run the resource monitor program while it's running? You may have a memory leak somewhere.
    You mean the graphs to see how much memory or CPU the operation is using? That I have, mainly to see how many cores were being used, which in XP may not be both. Both cores are used.

    Nothing special in memory usage. How do I know if there's a leak? AFAIK the CPU is what does the job.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Can you provide some screenshots of the program and the estimated time?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry I didn't provide screenshots of the program and estimated time.

    Instead I gave it a try to Handbrake, and I tried to convert a 12Gb mkv file to a smaller one, changing bitrate from 15Kb to 12Kb. It didn't provide the info on how large it would end up.

    Unfortunately after 16 hours processing I had to stop because there was still 8 hours more to go, so it seemed to go the same way Vicdocer did.

    There's not much you can select on it, or at least I didn't know how to, so it pretty much was a default conversion. The only thing I ticked was the 2-pass box.

    How can I do to lower these processing times?

    I was doing these processings in XP SP3, and I did check that both CPU cores were being used.
    Last edited by carlmart; 11th Oct 2012 at 07:01.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Handbrake (& vidcoder) aren't slow programs compared to other encoders. There is no magic program that is easy, fast, and gives good quality. Believe me, if there was one it'd be the first thing everyone mentions.

    If you're having this much problem with speed don't use 2 pass. Use constant quality mode. That's a handbrake expression, the technical expression is constant rate factor mode. It'll give about the same quality as 2 pass but much faster.

    There are actually quite a few h.264 options in handbrake but they are pretty complex, and frankly there really isn't any good way to simplify them. If there was I would have found it by now, and I'd happily post where I found it. Some newbies seem to think there's a conspiracy among video geeks to keep encoding parameters a secret. There isn't.

    For a start, do not use the handbrake default profile for high quality. It's meant for encoding to mobile screens. Use advanced profile and set the flag for 8x8 DCT. That's the single most important setting I've found for quality.

    If you don't care about quality but want max encoding speed use 1 pass target bitrate or filesize (really the same thing). But I don't think you'll like the results.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Ok, things are getting better.

    This time I used Hoser Rob suggestions, not using 2-pass but yes lowering bitrate to 10K, and 8x8 DCT setting.

    I'm not sure how long did it take to process, because I left it converting overnight, but it was less than 8 hours, which is quite good.

    I wish there was a way to know, before conversion, how large the file will be so I can trim bitrate to get to 8Gb, including audio, which is the purpose of this conversion. Is there a way to know that?

    This is the Mediainfo comparison between the files.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	handbrake_1.jpg
Views:	2421
Size:	85.1 KB
ID:	14219  

    Quote Quote  
  16. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    by using constant quality you'll have faster encodes but your avoiding the obvious thing here... theres something wrong with your OS/pc setup/vidcoder setup.

    post a screenshot, if you selected the slowest conversion profile it will take longerrrrrrrrr, we need more info
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Well, now I am giving a try to Handbrake, so the data I enclosed for the original and converted files was the result of converting with it.

    As we speak I am converting again, so I can get to a smaller size file, with slightly lower bitrate.

    After that I may go back to Vidcoder and see what we can do there, with screenshots and all.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Just finished the last conversion with Handbrake, this time lowering the bitrate a bit to get a smaller size mkv file.

    I'm still a little over, so it would need a new conversion. I resized to 9700 Kbps, but it still exceeds the disk max a bit. That's why I asked if there was a way to know through Handbrake on which size I would end up with.

    There seems to be a slight "freezing bumps" at the beginning on my PC, with VLC and WMP, but it plays fine through the network on my TV.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    During this past night I did another conversion with Handbrake, and it ended up with a larger than 8Gb size.

    So today I entered the same file onto Vidcoder, which does have a way to limit your final size, and I transported the bitrate value Vidcoder suggested to Handbrake. Now I'm converting again with Handbrake.

    Strangely enough, Vidcoder and Handbrake do seem to have some kind of link, because Vidcoder found the file location by itself, as if the default was already loaded in. I'm sure of that because the present location of the file I first used on Handbrake.

    I should mention that the converted file I did overnight also produced a slight "blink" at the beginning. What might be that?
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I agree with ricardouk actually ... there's something wrong with your setup, and I don't think it's either handbrake's or vidcoder's fault. Remember, they're really pretty much the same program with different front ends.

    My old single core laptop could do it in less time than it's taking you.

    Can your computer play high quality video OK?
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Even if I don't know them, and also because of my comment above, I do agree that Vidcoder and Handbrake are pretty much the same program. So I'm quite sure it's my Vidcom setup which is making matters wrong.

    It's not a hardware issue. I do very high quality video with my computer, even edit with Avid Media Composer. My processings with Handbrake are taking 5 hours or less, and I get the results I showed above, compared to the original.

    Perhaps I should show each Vidcoder setup screen to see what I am doing wrong. In Handbrake I'm not using 2-pass processing anymore, so maybe that was one big issue with Vidcoder too.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by carlmart View Post
    .... I'm trying for an 8Gb mkv to fit into a DL DVD.
    Only way that i know how to do it (that i know of) is by doing a 2 pass conversion, handbrake developers droped the 2 pass option in the GUI but it can still be used through the handbrake API like vidcoder (search the handbrake forums), your're waisting time by copying bitrate values from handbrake to vidcoder, trying lower or higher bitrate etc, if you want a certain size...use 2 pass.

    Without knowing the way you setup vidcoder etc there's no way we can help, in 3 weeks you havent posted the vidcoder settings??? (you might be using the slower profile and that takes ages, etc etc), post a screenshot, a screencast etc, don't get me wrong but you're waisting time with all these experiments, several users already asked you for your settings/screenshots.

    BTW saying your PC does video editing with Avid ot any other editing software doesnt "mean anything".

    Like most users here i visit the site every so often to see if i can help people with my limited knowledge, and i've been checking this thread every night after work to see those settings, but you choose to go on about something totally different.

    Post the settings!
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry if I frustrated many of you that wanted to help me.

    The reason I didn't put the Vidcoder screens is because I wasn't using it, as I was frustrated with it.

    So I gave this conversion some time, and one week ago I decided to try Handbrake instead. Results were quite promising, I think, as the Mediainfo comparison showed.

    But I always prefer to know what I'm doing, as far as possible, so I will try Vidcoder again, putting the screens and all that.

    I don't see why using the 2-pass option will show me the size I will get. 2-pass seems to delay conversion quite a lot, both in Vidcoder and Handbrake, even if I would be willing to try because it does seem to get a better conversion. As my conversion times in Handbrake are around 5 hours, it would be fine to double that if results are better.

    About my PC, I don't know what else can I add to what I already put on my third reply at the beginning. What else do you need to know?
    Quote Quote  
  24. Ok, you still haven't provided any detail about your settings within Vidcoder or Handbrake.
    BTW, Vidcoder has a setting for file size.
    Vidcoder uses Handbrake's engine so they are almost the same.
    So basically you are complaining and yet unwilling to do what it takes to allow someone to help you.
    There are plenty of Handbrake/Vidcoder users that are pleased with the results these programs give and within
    reasonable conversion times.
    So if you want to appear stupid, go ahead and keep this thread going, not giving any info and complain about
    how long they take to encode.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    I can't see the reason for offending words, so please do lower your tone or do not say anything.

    I'm not unwilling to do anything, except trying things that do not get me anywhere.

    Now it's midnight over here, so I don't intend to capture and upload the screens until tomorrow.

    People have helped me here to start solving the conversion problem, whether I use Vidcoder or Handbrake, and I always ask for info from this Forum. So why should I be hiding information?

    More than half my replies have been of satisfaction with Handbrake, and not of complain. So I do think your comments are completely out of place and exaggerated.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    I don't see why using the 2-pass option will show me the size I will get. 2-pass seems to delay conversion quite a lot
    read the following, hope it helps
    https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/AvgBitrateAndTargetSize
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    Ok, I captured some Vidcoder screens simulating a conversion.

    During the time I took to capture the screens, the expected conversion time got to 2 days and 4 hours, and still growing.

    With Handbrake I did this very same conversion in less than 5 hours, with no 2-pass though.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	vidcoder_1.jpg
Views:	570
Size:	94.0 KB
ID:	14282  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	vidcoder_2.jpg
Views:	2374
Size:	17.3 KB
ID:	14283  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	vidcoder_3.jpg
Views:	2494
Size:	23.8 KB
ID:	14284  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	vidcoder_4.jpg
Views:	2298
Size:	21.3 KB
ID:	14285  

    Quote Quote  
  28. In vidcoder, you didn't checkmark "turbo first pass" (under the 2pass checkbox)

    In handbrake, (if post #15 was the mediainfo report) you used faster settings eg. 1 ref frame vs 5 ref frame, subme 2 vs subme 6, and 1pass abr vs. 2pass (with slow 1st pass)

    If you like handbrake , then use handbrake. If you want same results, you need to use identical settings
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Brazil
    Search Comp PM
    I am trying to understand what each item means, what should I use on each program and why. It's certainly not a question of programs.

    About Reframes, if I'm not wrong I used 4 frames, not 1. I don't know what Subme is: where is it set as 6 on Vidcoder?

    And I'm aware that I didn't use 2-pass or turbo on Handbrake. That's the next thing I will try.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Originally Posted by carlmart View Post
    I am trying to understand what each item means, what should I use on each program and why. It's certainly not a question of programs.
    Well there is a lot to learn. That's why there are "presets" to simplify things. You should be using different settings for different types of content or scenarios

    This might get you started
    http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings

    Slower , higher compression settings will generally give you higher quality at a given bitrate

    2pass will generally give you better quality than 1 pass ABR

    About Reframes, if I'm not wrong I used 4 frames, not 1.
    post 15, the 2nd screenshot says 1

    Short version: the actual encoding settings say 1, but the mediainfo report says 4. The difference is mediainfo reports the DPB size, not the number of reference frames

    1) use of b-frames introduces 1 ref regardless of # of b-frames
    2) use of b-pyramid introduces 2 refs

    1+1+2 = 4

    I don't know what Subme is
    subpixel motion estimation
    http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings#subme
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!