x264, 2000 VBR, Anamorphic, auto-crop

HandBrake for Mac support
Forum rules
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
Post Reply
fall3n_j0ker
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:03 pm

x264, 2000 VBR, Anamorphic, auto-crop

Post by fall3n_j0ker »

Ok The rip finally completed after 8 hours, and the resulting file was about 1.79 gig, which is fine size wise, and the quality looked really good from what I could see, but opening the file in qt, or vlc results in the whole computer coming to a crawl and dropping about 80% of the frames, I am trying to play the movie on a powerbook g4 1.67 with 1.5 gig of ram and the 7200 rpm hd, Is this computer just too slow to play full quality rips?

I ripped the movie using handbrake for windows using the following settings:

Container MKV
Encoder h264(main)
VBR : 2000
Autocrop
Anamorphic
AutoFPS
AC3 passthrough

I noticed that using MKV causes a long delay in loading the files, though i don't seem to have any choice for using both AC3 and Anamorphic. Anyone have any ideas?
rhester
Veteran User
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by rhester »

Full resolution, particularly under high profile, will absolutely obliterate a G4 CPU. Yes, your machine is too slow to play this.

Rodney
fall3n_j0ker
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Good test on windows system?

Post by fall3n_j0ker »

What would be a good test then to make sure the file is going to work correctly for front-row(I'm replacing the laptop with a Macbook Pro 15 in january, but I want to start the process of archiving the disks I have now, as well as getting a Mac mini to serve as a media hub in my living room) I have tested smaller files of that format with lower quality and they seem to play well in frontrow, but i wanted to make sure before i started ripping my whole collection that the file actualy came out right.
fall3n_j0ker
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Tested on Athlon64

Post by fall3n_j0ker »

Ok, i downloaded VLC and tested the same file on the Windows system and noticed an improvement , but I'm still getting substantial dropped frames, what kind of system is required to play something of this quality level? Am i just shooting too high? I'm looking for a way to archive my dvd collection so that i can use it in frontrow without losing sound/video quality. Granted my new dual core system in january should be substantially faster than my g4, but i wouldn't think it would be that different than my Athlon 64. Thanks for any info.
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

The real truth is that H.264 wasn't really built for today's machines at all, but for those far ahead. We, as enthusiasts of the codec, are ahead of the masses.

I'm sure someone thought of a concept like H.264 20 years ago, but back then it seemed like a dream because it would probably take 6 months to encode a movie and would drop 99% of the frames on playback on those machines.

H.264 came to reality finally in 2003 when machines were about to reasonably start encoding it and about to reasonably start playing it back with the knowledge that it would get better over time. We are still in the reasonable zone today.

So my advice to you is that if you're archiving video for the future, go ahead and encode away at the nicer specs and just be patient. You really are encoding for the future and putting away video in a format that will be great for years. Then again, you're only one new machine away from beginning to enjoy it anyway.

If you need to play it now, then you'd be better off encoding to crappier watered down specs like for Apple TV or iPod - which I hugely recommend against when archiving for the future.

Your choice.
fall3n_j0ker
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:03 pm

The future

Post by fall3n_j0ker »

Yeah, i can understand that, which i am most definitely fine with, my only concern is making sure that the file actually works, I would hate to start the process all over again in january when I find out that the resulting file was not working correctly!

Thanks John
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Re: The future

Post by PuzZLeR »

fall3n_j0ker wrote:I would hate to start the process all over again in january when I find out that the resulting file was not working correctly!
That would certainly suck and be quite the rude awakening. I don't blame your defensive posture.

What I would do if I were you is encode a few samples, large and small and a bit of variety, burn them to some DvD-R as data and try it on a friend's machine, or someone else's that you know that has faster processing (with VLC and a couple of other player apps to make sure. Hopefully even a Mac and FrontRow.)

If they work fine, then just encode at those specs in the interim and your video will be ready for the (near) future when the time comes.

Good luck.
fall3n_j0ker
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Good idea

Post by fall3n_j0ker »

I have a friend at school who has a Macbook pro i could try it out on, hopefully all goes well.
Post Reply