2007-05-16, 22:00 | Link #21 |
I see what you did there!
Scanlator
|
6 hours seems so damn impractical for today's computers. I'm starting to get the impression is that x264 is a bit ahead of its time in terms of hardware.
If your encode messes up, that's essentially time wasted. This is a really disturbing revelation. I expected x264 to be slower since it newer and supposedly more efficient but this ridiculous. I can now actually understand why the transition from XviD has been so slow and many hold-outs remain. So, is the "insane" profile really necessary? What do normal, and less anal encoders use?
__________________
|
2007-05-16, 22:57 | Link #24 | |
Translator, Producer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 44
|
Quote:
And if you think that x264 is slow, you should try Quicktime's "h.264" (quotes needed) encoder. It's crappy, implements a small subset of the true power of h.264, and something like 10 times slower than x264. There are faster h.264 encoders out there, but they are commercial and generally not as high quality as x264. The ones that do rival x264 in quality are just as slow with high quality settings.
__________________
|
|
2007-05-16, 23:39 | Link #26 | |
Translator, Producer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 44
|
Quote:
You probably just need to make it show all *.* files so you can select it.
__________________
|
|
2007-05-17, 05:57 | Link #31 |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
As for the encoding speed, I have an Athlon X2 3800+ and with my settings mentioned in the earlier post, a 25min ep at 480p takes around 3-4 hours to encode from lossless. First pass 30-40 minutes, second pass 2-3 hours.
__________________
|
2007-05-17, 07:21 | Link #33 |
Two bit encoder
Fansubber
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 39
|
Well when we have quad core, or whatever AMD and Intel have up their sleeves, then we will see some reasonable encode times. However the current speed is not unreasonable. You can probably set your computer encoding when you wake up, and it might be done by the time you get home from work or school; or if you have a laptop, set it encoding, hide it somewhere and forget about it.
The slowest encode time I've had before is 0.13 - 0.17fps, this was a 1920x1080 PNG sequence which I encoded as lossless H.264. It was an interesting test... The lagarith was around 9GB, and the H.264 was 5.5GB. The project is http://www.elephantsdream.org/; the PNGs and lossless 5.1 can be found http://media.xiph.org/ED/ I remember years ago back in 2001 or so when I was getting into encoding, when I was messing around with DivX and stuff on a Duron 750. I forget the details now, but it must have gone about 5-10fps just encoding from QCIF MPEG-1. In fact one of these days I may drag my old rig out and see what goes. May even have a laugh and try to encode some pretty insane H.264 on it. You really have to appreciate how much work x264 does over XviD - it's not simply the case that it's just slow; it's doing so much more.
__________________
|
2007-05-17, 12:54 | Link #35 |
I see what you did there!
Scanlator
|
I still don't understand the aim of fansubbers using H.264... I see 3 distinct approaches.
Are we trying to beat XviD in quality at the same filesize? Cram more quality into a larger filesize just for the hell of it? Exceed XviD quality at substandard filesizes?
__________________
|
2007-05-17, 13:39 | Link #36 |
Aegisub dev
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 39
|
Yes, one of those three goals, which you pick is your own choice
Personally I would prefer one of the first or last ones. Sure, bandwidth and storage is getting cheaper all the time but that alone shouldn't be reason enough to make larger files. |
2007-05-17, 15:08 | Link #38 |
Senior Member
Fansubber
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 36
|
For me, the first goal is the reason for using h.264- if you can achieve more within the same frame, it's usually preferable.
But some people also want to match quality with former xvid encodes but turn out smaller file sizes for easy distribution and transport. Most of the time fansubs are from not great sources anyways, so there should never really be a reason to turn out larger file sizes in order to further increase quality. It's all up to your personal preference towards such things.
__________________
|
2007-05-17, 22:17 | Link #39 | ||
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
|
Quote:
Not everyone has eagle eyes for spotting noise or blocks and a lot don't even care (Youtube watchers, anyone?). But a lot of people care about their download times and the space it takes to store these encodes on their hard drive. Quote:
|
||
2007-05-18, 00:29 | Link #40 |
King of Hosers
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 41
|
Copyright and patent the methods in fansubbing, form an International Fansub Police Agency, then control the direction of the community n_n. It's that simple folks!
*bang bang* This is the I.F.P.A., we have reports that you have been fansubbing using means other then those dictated by The Community. Turn over yourself and all your scripts and nobody shoots the catgirls! |
|
|