Is this to be expected? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > Non-Linear Editing on the PC

Non-Linear Editing on the PC
Discussing the editing of all formats with Matrox, Pinnacle and more.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 13th, 2007, 07:59 PM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 213
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.
Deke Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2007, 08:25 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 487
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.
Chris Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2007, 08:41 PM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Harris View Post
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?
Deke Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2007, 10:59 PM   #4
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 487
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.
Chris Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2007, 12:28 AM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn NY
Posts: 128
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.
Charles Hurley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2007, 01:18 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 487
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.
Chris Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2007, 02:23 AM   #7
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn NY
Posts: 128
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.
Charles Hurley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2007, 07:31 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 213
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?
Deke Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2007, 03:18 PM   #9
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Amsterdam Holland
Posts: 15
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?
__________________
digit
Joff B. Rein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM   #10
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
Moderator note: this has been moved from the Mac forum to the PC forum since Deke is actually using Quicktime on a PC.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2007, 05:54 AM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada!
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deke Ryland View Post
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?
__________________
dreaming hobbyist + storyteller
www.michaelywong.com
Michael Y Wong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2007, 10:03 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 213
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?
Deke Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2007, 10:17 PM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada!
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deke Ryland View Post
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.
__________________
dreaming hobbyist + storyteller
www.michaelywong.com
Michael Y Wong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2007, 10:18 PM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 487
I export my HDV projects using the HDV codec for archiving. They look great.
Chris Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2007, 11:02 PM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 213
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.
Deke Ryland is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Windows / PC Post Production Solutions > Non-Linear Editing on the PC

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network