Quantcast How to get Faster Encoding Times... - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
01-01-2003, 02:56 PM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi all!

this probably doesn't belong here but...
I was wondering how I could achieve a faster encoding time.
I have an Athlon XP1800+ w/ 256MB Infineon Ram...

I assume there is no other way than getting a new CPU... Well if there are any TMPGEnc software tweaks (or OS tweaks) which I should know about, please let me know guys...
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
01-01-2003, 06:06 PM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've read that you can turn on some of the mutithreading options in TMPGEnc even if you only have a single CPU and see some performace gain, but other than that you are somewhat limited by how optimized the avisynth filters are, the amount of resizing you are doing, and then of course your CPU and RAM. SansGrip has mentioned he may eventually do some optimization of his filters in the future which may help, but who knows how much difference it would make...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
01-01-2003, 07:05 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If you're using the latest FluxSmooth it's already very highly optimized in assembly language. Blockbuster is still in C++, but is very speedy already. And Sampler should have essentially zero impact on encoding time .
Reply With Quote
  #4  
01-01-2003, 09:15 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
if you ever use the "resise" first on the script :
faster,but more final size!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
01-01-2003, 09:45 PM
conquest10 conquest10 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 98
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i use resize in my script and i don't notice any difference in times. maybe just 2-3 minutes.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
01-01-2003, 09:51 PM
Gaudi Gaudi is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Gaudi
I have noticed that CPU priority does not affect very much the encoding. I have noticed that TMPEG uses almost 99 percent of the CPU time, so I donīt think the times can be reduced.

BTW, I am using Athlon Thunderbird 1.33 GHz, 512 mb ram.

Gaudi
Reply With Quote
  #7  
01-01-2003, 10:15 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If using many Avisynth processing filters (smoothers, etc.), you'll find a significant performance boost by placing them after the resize instead of before.

Some people claim this makes smoothers too aggressive, so either turn down the settings a little or run the smoother before the resize, if you find it a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
01-01-2003, 10:23 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip
If using many Avisynth processing filters (smoothers, etc.), you'll find a significant performance boost by placing them after the resize instead of before.

Some people claim this makes smoothers too aggressive, so either turn down the settings a little or run the smoother before the resize, if you find it a problem.

".....placing them after the resize instead of before."

yes,sometimes you get 1/3 of gain in time in this way,
i do tons of tests,remember my (old) list of scripts?

"...or run the smoother before the resize, if you find it a problem."

yes Sansgrip, i'm with you,
but to get time put "resise" first,right?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
01-02-2003, 05:15 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well I could upgrade my RAM to 512MB for a great price... I wonder if it would change anything though... I already have 256mb, isn't that basically enough for our purposes?
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #10  
01-02-2003, 09:40 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellygoose
Well I could upgrade my RAM to 512MB for a great price... I wonder if it would change anything though... I already have 256mb, isn't that basically enough for our purposes?
yes,256 mb it's ok!
512mb is better,increase "a little" performance,not double,
the scale isn't linear
.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TMPGEnc: Encoding 2-3 times automatically with different cq WOWIEGURL Video Encoding and Conversion 1 04-12-2004 05:55 AM
KVCD: Faster Encoding, almost the same quality? digitalize Video Encoding and Conversion 47 09-17-2003 11:17 AM
Subtitles: Correct displayed times acki Subtitles 3 05-20-2003 05:21 AM
KVCD: ToK loads tmpgenc 4 times? pixeldotz Video Encoding and Conversion 4 05-16-2003 10:08 AM
TMPGEnc: Faster encoding times possible with TMPGenc? chrome307 Video Encoding and Conversion 0 07-22-2002 08:48 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM  —  vBulletin Đ Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd