DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Non-Linear Editing on the PC (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-pc/)
-   -   Is this to be expected? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-pc/91460-expected.html)

Deke Ryland April 13th, 2007 06:59 PM

Is this to be expected?
 
Hey guys...

I am doing some encoding using QuickTime 7 Pro and the H.264 codec on some video clips so I can put them on the web.

My source footage is 15 mins of HDV 1440x1080... but was exported as Quicktime Uncompressed, making the source file 128 GB.

I am taking that uncompressed HDV footage (128 GB) and using that in QT7Pro to export a 800x450 H.264 encoding with a bitrate of about 1200 kbs.

Is it normal for QT7Pro to take about 8-9+ hours to encode this single file?

I am really worried that it is taking so long, considering I purchased a Intel Quad-Core QX6700 (best on market) workstation, with 4 GB RAM, etc.

Are these super long encode times sound right to you? I am new to encoding so I really have no idea what is the norm with something like this. So I thought I would ask you guys. Thanks for any help on this. Take care.

Chris Harris April 13th, 2007 07:25 PM

I don't know, I use a combination of Compressor and MPEG Streamclip. I can't imagine ever waiting 8-9 hours to encode a 15 minute clip for my purposes. I'm curious, why don't you use Compressor to do a direct H.264 export? Or, if you're intent on exporting as uncompressed first, try MPEG Streamclip instead of QT Pro. It works a lot better, in my experience.

Deke Ryland April 13th, 2007 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harris (Post 659833)
I'm curious, why don't you use Compressor to do a direct H.264 export? Or, if you're intent on exporting as uncompressed first, try MPEG Streamclip instead of QT Pro. It works a lot better, in my experience.

Hey Chris... Unfortunately I'm on a Windows XP machine. I'm not sure what to make of the encoding time. So you think it is suspect?

Chris Harris April 13th, 2007 09:59 PM

Oh I'm sorry, I assumed that since this is the Mac forum, and you mentioned an Intel Quad Core, that you were talking about a Mac Pro. Well, regardless, there's a version of MPEG Streamclip for the PC, and it's a free program, so I'd give it a try, I suspect you'll get better results. Those encoding times do seem pretty slow to me. I've done encoding similar to what you're talking about on my Mac Pro, substituting MPEG Streamclip instead of QT Pro, and it certainly doesn't take anywhere near that long. Give it a try and report back! I'm curious to see how it works out, and if the results are satisfactory.

Charles Hurley April 13th, 2007 11:28 PM

Yes, that is correct. In fact 8 hours seems quick. H264 render times tend to get longer as it goes so what starts out as 8 can easily turn into 16. May I ask what you hope to gain by blowing an HDV movie out to 128Gigs? That data rate is so huge I doubt you can even watch it on non raid systems, all you're doing is creating huge amounts of redundant data, and then to recompress it? Whatever your mad scheme is good luck with it.

Chris Harris April 14th, 2007 12:18 AM

8 hours seems quick for a 15 minute H.264 clip on his machine? I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps I'm not very picky over quality and I'm doing something wrong, but a 15 minute file would take my machine somewhere around 20 to 30 minutes on a single pass.

Charles Hurley April 14th, 2007 01:23 AM

I agree that mpeg streamclip is much faster than FCP or compressor. I just did this recently with a MBP and a 15 minute uncompressed DVCPROHD movie 13 GB took 11 hours using compressor@2000mbps 1920x1080. Dude is working with 128GB, again, 128GB. You can barely copy that much info in 30 minutes let alone compress it to h264. ffmegx and mpeg streamclip are both great alternatives, for some reason apple's transcoders are all really slow.

Deke Ryland April 14th, 2007 06:31 AM

Hey guys... I'm really new to video editing, but I thought since I am editing HDV natively that I would want to export to a lossless format so there wouldn't be any unnecessary generational loss by the time I get it to QT7Pro to export for the web.

Is this thinking sound? What would you guys suggest I do when I am done and finished with my final sequence in my editor?

Joff B. Rein April 14th, 2007 02:18 PM

put it in compessor (or qt) choose a standard qt7web stream-output around 1000kbits/sec (maybe too heavy for home users, standard is more around 500kbits/sec for web)

render time max. 1 hour?

Boyd Ostroff April 14th, 2007 02:23 PM

Moderator note: this has been moved from the Mac forum to the PC forum since Deke is actually using Quicktime on a PC.

Michael Y Wong April 15th, 2007 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deke Ryland (Post 660043)
Is this thinking sound? What would you guys suggest I do when I am done and finished with my final sequence in my editor?

Export back to the same HDV format as your original capture. Provided you are not re-editing multiple generations of video clips (can not see why you would) the output will look fine. 15 MINs hdv 1080i should be about 3 gigs, NOT 128, that is just ridiculous. Even using cineform 'uncompressed' (i am using that term VERY loosely) @ its highest quality the clip is about 10 gigs.

How can it be 128 gigs? Are you exporting to some sort of raw format?

Deke Ryland April 15th, 2007 09:03 PM

Hey Michael,

The 128 GB is the result of exporting to Apple.None (uncompressed).

So you suggest exporting my final timeline to an HDV MPEG? Wouldn't that encoding an MPEG from the original MPEG? See, I thought this was not recommended because it would produce "generational loss" from the original footage captured from the camera. Or am I making to big a deal about this?

Because my projects are destined for the web only, and quality of picture and high resolution is of high importance for what I am doing, I am just trying to provide Sorenson Squeeze or QT7Pro the most pristine export possible from my editor. Of course, this uncompressed export files (like my 128 GB file), isn't optimal. So I am looking for the next best thing.

I have done so much research to try to find out what format people export their HDV MPEG projects to, with the intent of taking that exported file to QT7Pro/Sorenson for re-encoding for the web.

So you think MPEG is the way to go?

Michael Y Wong April 15th, 2007 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deke Ryland (Post 660917)
Or am I making to big a deal about this?

So you think MPEG is the way to go?

Definately (2 both questions).

I archive back my edited HDV back to m2t tape. Looks great imo, and I'm sure many many other woudl think so too.

Furhtermore if you are encoding to the web, there is no way anyone will notice the difference with what you are doing as the resolution of your web output will be a fraction of it's original resolution.

I say encode it back to HDV, and or some other manageable file size, and work from there.

Chris Harris April 15th, 2007 09:18 PM

I export my HDV projects using the HDV codec for archiving. They look great.

Deke Ryland April 15th, 2007 10:02 PM

Wow... that would be great if there wasn't much quality loss in the picture exporting back to HDV MPEG.

So just to make sure I have this right... I capture my HDV from my camera, add it all to my timeline, finish my sequence and go to File->Export->Adobe Media Encoder, and then I choose MPEG-2.

Since I am using these exported files to make web encodings, do I set the pixel aspect ratio to 1.0 Square or do I keep it at the 1.333 HD Anamorphic? I never understood that. Thanks so much for your help and guidance guys.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network