StaxRip x264 too slow now.

[vidqual]

Hi,

I´ve been using StaxRip for a long time with the x264 encoder, but since
the latest versions I don´t use it anymore because it is too slow with the
second pass. I always use the slower preset, but the second pass now
takes a few hours, when with previous versions it took 2-3 times less
time. Does this happen to any of you? Is there a fix for this or any
tweak, better presets?

I like StaxRip because of its nice interface and easy use, but if it´s
become slow now, I can´t use it anymore...

Thanks!

Cheers.

[hello_hello]

Are you 100% sure you're still using the same encoder settings?
StaxRip creates an AVISynth script which is used for encoding so if things have slowed down it's possibly not StaxRip's fault as such. It could be the encoder (although I doubt it) or it could be an AVISynth filter causing a bottleneck. Are you using the same filters (de-interlacing/de-noising etc) as you always have? Is the video a similar resolution etc?

The first thing I'd do is check CPU usage while encoding. If it's sitting at close to 100% for the whole encode then you won't encode any faster unless you use faster filters or a faster x264 preset. If it's not sitting close to 100% then maybe you could experiment with different filters (if you're using any) to see if that makes a difference.

[vidqual]

Are you 100% sure you're still using the same encoder settings?
StaxRip creates an AVISynth script which is used for encoding so if things have slowed down it's possibly not StaxRip's fault as such. It could be the encoder (although I doubt it) or it could be an AVISynth filter causing a bottleneck. Are you using the same filters (de-interlacing/de-noising etc) as you always have? Is the video a similar resolution etc?

The first thing I'd do is check CPU usage while encoding. If it's sitting at close to 100% for the whole encode then you won't encode any faster unless you use faster filters or a faster x264 preset. If it's not sitting close to 100% then maybe you could experiment with different filters (if you're using any) to see if that makes a difference.

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Good to see some StaxRip users around! I always liked it very much.
I know someone else who has this same problem, it´s become slower
(x264 encoder). I don´t know why, perhaps it´s just us... but the
comparison is fair, same CPU, type of video (DVD), length... XviD
encoder works fine though; it takes about the same encoding time as
I remember, not a huge difference.

Haven´t you noticed any slow down from previous older versions
from 1-2 years ago or so? I always used the HQ slowest preset,
but this one disappeared and the closest one seems to be Film HQ
slower. I´ve tried this one but I tell you, the second pass takes
twice as much time... I haven´t tweaked it actually, and I only
use the Interlace Yadiz filter, and sometimes the crop/cutting
filters. just those...

Any new good presets to try?

Cheers.

[hello_hello]

To be honest I haven't used StaxRip regularly myself..... pretty much just enough to understand the basics of it. I don't have it installed at the moment so I'd have to install it to look at the presets, but it's possible older versions of StaxRip didn't use the default x264 settings for it's presets, whereas the newer version does, so it may be the current HQ Slower preset is slower than the old HQ Slowest preset. It sounds to me like the speed difference is due to x264 settings. Yadif and cropping shouldn't slow things down.

I generally just use the x264 Slow preset myself for standard definition, as my PC's getting a bit long in the tooth and anything slower tends to be a bit err.... slow. For HD video I often use the x264 default medium speed preset. Maybe just try a faster preset.

Until someone who knows StaxRip better than myself comes along, I could only suggest trying another GUI in order to compare speed. I use MeGUI myself. When setting up the x264 encoder it's default settings are x264's default settings and it uses x264's own built in speed presets and tunings. That way you'd know where you are, at least in respect to the x264 settings StaxRip uses and whether there's any major speed differences. MeGUI uses pretty much the same tools as StaxRip "behind the scenes" so it probably wouldn't have too much of a learning curve. Other than that, I'm pretty sure the current version of HandBrake/Vidcoder now also use x264's built in speed presets and tunings etc.

And I gotta ask ....... 2 pass encoding?? Not too many people around here would encode that way any more, I don't think. It's more common to use x264's single pass CRF (quality) mode unless for some reason you need a particular file size. Given the same x264 settings I think the speed is the same as the second pass of a 2 pass encode, only there's no need for a first pass.

[johns0]

I use 2 pass encoding,depending on the resolution and type it could take 2x the amount of time to encode a 1080p as compared to a 720p down convert.

[vidqual]

And I gotta ask ....... 2 pass encoding?? Not too many people around here would encode that way any more, I don't think. It's more common to use x264's single pass CRF (quality) mode unless for some reason you need a particular file size. Given the same x264 settings I think the speed is the same as the second pass of a 2 pass encode, only there's no need for a first pass.

Hi,

Well, I don´t do many conversions, actually, so I´m not up to date on the latest
more efficient settings/presets... It´d be great if you could point me in the right
direction!

I´d like to try the latest best presets available, quality-based, from power users;
both x264 and XviD encoders for MeGUI and StaxRip too, if possible!

BTW, how do you compare XviD to x264? Is XviD worth it?

Thanks.

Cheers.

[hello_hello]

I think it kind of went this way..... before x264 had it's own built in presets, various encoder GUIs had presets of their own. Some probably still do. Each GUIs presets would no doubt have used different x264 settings, so a slow preset for one GUI might use different settings to a slow preset using another GUI.

In an ideal world, it's probably best to just use x264's own presets if you can. That way, regardless of the encoder GUI you use, the x264 settings should always be the same for a given preset. Not all encoder GUI's make this easy for you though, but.....
In the case of MeGUI, open the x264 encoder configuration, hit the "Load Defaults" button and you're now using the x264 default settings. Pick an x264 speed preset (the default of medium is fine) select a quality (I use 18 for pretty much everything.... lower is better), pick a Tuning if you want to and you're good to go. You can save the configuration as an MeGUI preset if you so desire, but that's probably the best way to understand the distinction between using x264's own presets and a GUI's presets.
I have no idea what sort of relationship StaxRip's presets have to x264's settings. Some encoder GUIs have a "load defaults" button but using it doesn't load the encoder defaults, it loads the GUI's defaults. MeGUI plays nice. When you load the encoder defaults you get the encoder defaults.

I don't think Xvid is worth it any more. x264 is better at retaining fine detail and it can produce the same or better quality with smaller file sizes.

As far as using other people's encoder presets goes......... no, no, no, no, no, no, no (in my opinion). I won't offer my rant on messing with advanced x264 settings or the amount of misinformation on the internet, but x264 has it's own presets for a reason..... each is a different combination of advanced options to give an appropriate balance between speed and quality/file size. So... run a few test encodes using different quality settings until you find the one you're happy with (18 is supposed to be where the x264 encoder is "transparent") pick an appropriate tuning, select the slowest x264 speed preset you can stand and that's pretty much all there is to it. The default medium speed preset is fine, but you can use a slower one if you want to.

[vidqual]

I think it kind of went this way..... before x264 had it's own built in presets, various encoder GUIs had presets of their own. Some probably still do. Each GUIs presets would no doubt have used different x264 settings, so a slow preset for one GUI might use different settings to a slow preset using another GUI.

In an ideal world, it's probably best to just use x264's own presets if you can. That way, regardless of the encoder GUI you use, the x264 settings should always be the same for a given preset. Not all encoder GUI's make this easy for you though, but.....
In the case of MeGUI, open the x264 encoder configuration, hit the "Load Defaults" button and you're now using the x264 default settings. Pick an x264 speed preset (the default of medium is fine) select a quality (I use 18 for pretty much everything.... lower is better), pick a Tuning if you want to and you're good to go. You can save the configuration as an MeGUI preset if you so desire, but that's probably the best way to understand the distinction between using x264's own presets and a GUI's presets.
I have no idea what sort of relationship StaxRip's presets have to x264's settings. Some encoder GUIs have a "load defaults" button but using it doesn't load the encoder defaults, it loads the GUI's defaults. MeGUI plays nice. When you load the encoder defaults you get the encoder defaults.

I don't think Xvid is worth it any more. x264 is better at retaining fine detail and it can produce the same or better quality with smaller file sizes.

As far as using other people's encoder presets goes......... no, no, no, no, no, no, no (in my opinion). I won't offer my rant on messing with advanced x264 settings or the amount of misinformation on the internet, but x264 has it's own presets for a reason..... each is a different combination of advanced options to give an appropriate balance between speed and quality/file size. So... run a few test encodes using different quality settings until you find the one you're happy with (18 is supposed to be where the x264 encoder is "transparent") pick an appropriate tuning, select the slowest x264 speed preset you can stand and that's pretty much all there is to it. The default medium speed preset is fine, but you can use a slower one if you want to.

Hi,

Yeah, I have to agree with most of what you just stated.

I did a test earlier with a 1-pass quality-based x264 encoding in StaxRip,
and the ETA was looking promising (I canceled it after 10 minutes or so),
faster than what I expected. But I think I prefer 2-pass encoding; I don´t
like much not having control over the file sizes and bitrates. Anyway, I´ll
keep testing...

Thanks!

Cheers.

[hello_hello]

If the final bitrate is the same, 2 pass and CRF encoding pretty much encode the video in the same way. So if you pick a quality, you don't know what the file size will be. If you pick a file size you don't know what the quality will be. Personally I prefer to know the quality relative to the original will be the same each time. Even back in Xvid encoding days I stopped encoding for file size pretty quickly and went for quality instead, so I'm used to file sizes varying all over the place.