Best exporting/converting software? at DVinfo.net

Advil Dremali · April 6th, 2005, 02:06 PM

Currently, I use Canopus Procoder 2 to export my edited videos from Premiere 1.5 pro. And no matter what, it takes FOREVER. No matter what I convert from or to, it's always exporting at like .13x realtime. So it takes a really, really, realllyyy long time.

I like to export to wmv, just so you know.

Any ideas?

Jimmy McKenzie · April 6th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Why not use the Adobe media encoder from within PPro?

Advil Dremali · April 6th, 2005, 02:51 PM

does it have many compression options?

...i'll try.

Robert Mann Z. · April 6th, 2005, 03:01 PM

there are many many thing sto do to speed up procoder...

shut off any background opertaions like anti virus
even a good idea to shut of network connections
close all other programs except ppro
choose highest quility instead of the master quality
make sure you have the latest version...

for even faster encoding export out your ppro video as uncompressed or dv and use procoder in stand alone mode, it is 50% faster when it works out side an nle

i currently run procoder 2 on a dual xeon 3.06 workstation with 1gig o ram and get faster the rt performance on any wmv settings

i also use procoder 1 on a 3.06 laptop with ht and get faster then rt performance...

what are your system specs?

Advil Dremali · April 6th, 2005, 03:15 PM

I'm on a laptop with only 512 ram and 2.4 ghz p4.

When I export with Adobe media encoder it's FAST. Much faster than RT. But it doesn't have as many options as Procoder 2.

When I export I don't multitask. I just minimize my AIM and stuff and leave it to work since it takes forever.

Rob Lohman · April 10th, 2005, 04:15 AM

One of the reasons Procoder is slower is that it creates a better
output. Personally I don't care too much how long it takes, yes,
it may be annoying in the beginning. But once you get the hang
of which settings great the best output for certain lenghts (to fit
a DVD R) you will just set it and put it to work. In a good nights
sleep it should at least encode 1 hour of footage at 0.13x speeds.

Or invest in a faster computer. Those aren't too expensive (CPU
speeds is what really counts, you don't have to get a 128 or 256
MB graphics card for exampl) and you could get a dedicated
rendering station.

I even believe ProCoder actively uses dual processor (not 100%
sure on that though).

Robert Mann Z. · April 10th, 2005, 10:18 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman :

I even believe ProCoder actively uses dual processor (not 100%
sure on that though). -->>>

Yes it does...

<<<-- Originally posted by Advil Dremali:

When I export I don't multitask. I just minimize my AIM and stuff and leave it to work since it takes forever. -->>>

thats still won't help, you need to shut off AIM and any other resource grabbing apps, procder really takes full advantage of all available cycles...

Advil Dremali · April 10th, 2005, 08:13 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : One of the reasons Procoder is slower is that it creates a better
output. Personally I don't care too much how long it takes, yes,
it may be annoying in the beginning. But once you get the hang
of which settings great the best output for certain lenghts (to fit
a DVD R) you will just set it and put it to work. In a good nights
sleep it should at least encode 1 hour of footage at 0.13x speeds.

Or invest in a faster computer. Those aren't too expensive (CPU
speeds is what really counts, you don't have to get a 128 or 256
MB graphics card for exampl) and you could get a dedicated
rendering station.

I even believe ProCoder actively uses dual processor (not 100%
sure on that though). -->>>

I've gotten a new computer, it's just not done. It's got an AMD 64 bit 3500+ :)

Rob Lohman · April 11th, 2005, 02:56 AM

I'm not following what you are saying Advil? Did encoding times
not drop? Or do you think it still takes too much time?

Good mpeg-2 encoding is an art, both on the encoder and the
settings you set it to. If you want high quality you are going to
pay in terms of processing time. The big boys encode their movies
over weeks or months (if they want a really good encode).

Advil Dremali · April 11th, 2005, 08:45 PM

I see..

It's just weird, I heard that people encode at like 2-3x realtime.

I guess this is okay then.

Moe Belli · April 15th, 2005, 10:01 AM

Procoder is slow at encoding WMV files. To speed it up I change the encoded to single pass VBR, I think the Procoder WMV preset is set at 2-pass VBR so it's slower. You might be able to adjust the quality as well to reduce encode times.

Procoder might in general, take a little longer but it's worth it, the quality is so much better than anything out there, especially the built in Premiere encoder (although the difference might not be noticeable on high datarates).

One more thing, I've noticed that Procoder seems to be tweaked for MPEG output. MPEG1 and MPEG2 encoding times are fast, much faster then Quicktime or WMV (which seems the slowest).

So, I don't know your application, but if you're not going to the Web and just sending quick preview video clips to clients try MPEG1/VCD instead of WMV. MPEG1 is lightining fast, it;s supported by more operating systems than WMV and the quality is pretty good (not as good as WMV of course). I often do time code burns using MPEG1 for clients that need to view via computer and MPEG2/DVD for clients who want to view on their desktop DVD player.

MB

Rob Lohman · April 18th, 2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Advil Dremali

It's just weird, I heard that people encode at like 2-3x realtime.

They are probably using encoders with a lesser quality or using lower (quality)
settings and/or have a faster system.

Advil Dremali · April 18th, 2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moe Belli

Procoder is slow at encoding WMV files. To speed it up I change the encoded to single pass VBR, I think the Procoder WMV preset is set at 2-pass VBR so it's slower. You might be able to adjust the quality as well to reduce encode times.

Procoder might in general, take a little longer but it's worth it, the quality is so much better than anything out there, especially the built in Premiere encoder (although the difference might not be noticeable on high datarates).

One more thing, I've noticed that Procoder seems to be tweaked for MPEG output. MPEG1 and MPEG2 encoding times are fast, much faster then Quicktime or WMV (which seems the slowest).

So, I don't know your application, but if you're not going to the Web and just sending quick preview video clips to clients try MPEG1/VCD instead of WMV. MPEG1 is lightining fast, it;s supported by more operating systems than WMV and the quality is pretty good (not as good as WMV of course). I often do time code burns using MPEG1 for clients that need to view via computer and MPEG2/DVD for clients who want to view on their desktop DVD player.

MB

Does MPEG1 save as a .mpg file?

edit - I just tried it and it's faster.. like.. .30x realtime.

So now I can burn these .mpgs to a vcd so I can play them on my dvd/vcd player with nero right?

Rob Lohman · April 19th, 2005, 04:18 AM

Just, but MPEG-1 is a lot lower quality than MPEG-2 (DVD).

MPEG-1 is half resolution and a less efficient algorithm.

If I don't want to go the DVD route I use SVCD (MPEG-2 at 480x480 for NTSC
or 480x576 for PAL) a lot, which you can burn to a normal CD.

However, it is not really a "real standard", so not all DVD players will support
reading those discs (although a lot these days do).

So if it just for checking how it looks on TV etc. I mainly use that (if I can't
use direct out through a camera from my NLE).

Advil Dremali · April 19th, 2005, 06:29 AM

It's okay, I'm sure my dvd player reads vcd/svcd discs. I just wasn't sure how to burn it.

Thanks for that info :)

April 6th, 2005, 02:06 PM	#1
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	Best exporting/converting software? Currently, I use Canopus Procoder 2 to export my edited videos from Premiere 1.5 pro. And no matter what, it takes FOREVER. No matter what I convert from or to, it's always exporting at like .13x realtime. So it takes a really, really, realllyyy long time. I like to export to wmv, just so you know. Any ideas?

April 10th, 2005, 04:15 AM	#6
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	One of the reasons Procoder is slower is that it creates a better output. Personally I don't care too much how long it takes, yes, it may be annoying in the beginning. But once you get the hang of which settings great the best output for certain lenghts (to fit a DVD R) you will just set it and put it to work. In a good nights sleep it should at least encode 1 hour of footage at 0.13x speeds. Or invest in a faster computer. Those aren't too expensive (CPU speeds is what really counts, you don't have to get a 128 or 256 MB graphics card for exampl) and you could get a dedicated rendering station. I even believe ProCoder actively uses dual processor (not 100% sure on that though). __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 11th, 2005, 02:56 AM	#9
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I'm not following what you are saying Advil? Did encoding times not drop? Or do you think it still takes too much time? Good mpeg-2 encoding is an art, both on the encoder and the settings you set it to. If you want high quality you are going to pay in terms of processing time. The big boys encode their movies over weeks or months (if they want a really good encode). __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 19th, 2005, 04:18 AM	#14
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Just, but MPEG-1 is a lot lower quality than MPEG-2 (DVD). MPEG-1 is half resolution and a less efficient algorithm. If I don't want to go the DVD route I use SVCD (MPEG-2 at 480x480 for NTSC or 480x576 for PAL) a lot, which you can burn to a normal CD. However, it is not really a "real standard", so not all DVD players will support reading those discs (although a lot these days do). So if it just for checking how it looks on TV etc. I mainly use that (if I can't use direct out through a camera from my NLE). __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 6th, 2005, 02:13 PM	#2
Jimmy McKenzie Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Waterloo Ontario Posts: 721	Why not use the Adobe media encoder from within PPro?

April 6th, 2005, 02:51 PM	#3
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	does it have many compression options? ...i'll try.

April 6th, 2005, 03:01 PM	#4
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	there are many many thing sto do to speed up procoder... shut off any background opertaions like anti virus even a good idea to shut of network connections close all other programs except ppro choose highest quility instead of the master quality make sure you have the latest version... for even faster encoding export out your ppro video as uncompressed or dv and use procoder in stand alone mode, it is 50% faster when it works out side an nle i currently run procoder 2 on a dual xeon 3.06 workstation with 1gig o ram and get faster the rt performance on any wmv settings i also use procoder 1 on a 3.06 laptop with ht and get faster then rt performance... what are your system specs?

April 6th, 2005, 03:15 PM	#5
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	I'm on a laptop with only 512 ram and 2.4 ghz p4. When I export with Adobe media encoder it's FAST. Much faster than RT. But it doesn't have as many options as Procoder 2. When I export I don't multitask. I just minimize my AIM and stuff and leave it to work since it takes forever.

April 10th, 2005, 10:18 AM	#7
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : I even believe ProCoder actively uses dual processor (not 100% sure on that though). -->>> Yes it does... <<<-- Originally posted by Advil Dremali: When I export I don't multitask. I just minimize my AIM and stuff and leave it to work since it takes forever. -->>> thats still won't help, you need to shut off AIM and any other resource grabbing apps, procder really takes full advantage of all available cycles...

April 10th, 2005, 08:13 PM	#8
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : One of the reasons Procoder is slower is that it creates a better output. Personally I don't care too much how long it takes, yes, it may be annoying in the beginning. But once you get the hang of which settings great the best output for certain lenghts (to fit a DVD R) you will just set it and put it to work. In a good nights sleep it should at least encode 1 hour of footage at 0.13x speeds. Or invest in a faster computer. Those aren't too expensive (CPU speeds is what really counts, you don't have to get a 128 or 256 MB graphics card for exampl) and you could get a dedicated rendering station. I even believe ProCoder actively uses dual processor (not 100% sure on that though). -->>> I've gotten a new computer, it's just not done. It's got an AMD 64 bit 3500+ :)

April 11th, 2005, 08:45 PM	#10
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	I see.. It's just weird, I heard that people encode at like 2-3x realtime. I guess this is okay then.

April 15th, 2005, 10:01 AM	#11
Moe Belli New Boot Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 22	Procoder is slow at encoding WMV files. To speed it up I change the encoded to single pass VBR, I think the Procoder WMV preset is set at 2-pass VBR so it's slower. You might be able to adjust the quality as well to reduce encode times. Procoder might in general, take a little longer but it's worth it, the quality is so much better than anything out there, especially the built in Premiere encoder (although the difference might not be noticeable on high datarates). One more thing, I've noticed that Procoder seems to be tweaked for MPEG output. MPEG1 and MPEG2 encoding times are fast, much faster then Quicktime or WMV (which seems the slowest). So, I don't know your application, but if you're not going to the Web and just sending quick preview video clips to clients try MPEG1/VCD instead of WMV. MPEG1 is lightining fast, it;s supported by more operating systems than WMV and the quality is pretty good (not as good as WMV of course). I often do time code burns using MPEG1 for clients that need to view via computer and MPEG2/DVD for clients who want to view on their desktop DVD player. MB

April 19th, 2005, 06:29 AM	#15
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	It's okay, I'm sure my dvd player reads vcd/svcd discs. I just wasn't sure how to burn it. Thanks for that info :)