Handbrake taking 10+ hours?!

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.
davecatt
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:29 am

Handbrake taking 10+ hours?!

Post by davecatt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:35 am

I just started using Handbrake because my buddies told me how quick and easy it was for them. For some reason though it takes my Handbrake 10+ hours to rip a dvd for an iPod Touch. I have attached a picture of my settings....any solutions?

Image

Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:46 am

1. You have a [Censored] poor slow computer...

2. You are using different settings than your bud...

3. You are using pirated movies that are jackup beyond belief...

4. You are using a jacked up Main Feature rip from MTR...

How in the hell is anyone going to know what the problem is if you provide so little info?

davecatt
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:29 am

Post by davecatt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:02 am

Cavalicious wrote:1. You have a [Censored] poor slow computer...

2. You are using different settings than your bud...

3. You are using pirated movies that are jackup beyond belief...

4. You are using a jacked up Main Feature rip from MTR...

How in the hell is anyone going to know what the problem is if you provide so little info?
How the hell am I suppose to know? Is this better for you :roll:

iMac 1.9 GHz PPC G5
1.5 GB DDR2 SDRAM
Mac OSX 10.4.10

Not a pirated movie

I did use MacTheRipper

Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:19 am

davecatt wrote:How the hell am I suppose to know?
Hmmm...You're right! Why should I expect you to read the Forum Rules, or even follow the simplistic directions located here.

Yeah, my bad :roll:

davecatt
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:29 am

Post by davecatt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:38 am

look i'm trying to get a simple answer here, no need to be an ass

Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:48 am

davecatt wrote:look i'm trying to get a simple answer here, no need to be an ass
Thats the problem. Everyone wants simple answers to symptoms that can initiate 1 of a 100 different ways. Yet, don't want to provide simple details that would allow a simple and quick answer.

Here's your simple answer: Don't know

Heres a better one: Try using a Preset (iphone) and don't modify it. Then lets see how long it takes.

davecatt
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:29 am

Post by davecatt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:52 am

Cavalicious wrote:
davecatt wrote:look i'm trying to get a simple answer here, no need to be an ass
Thats the problem. Everyone wants simple answers to symptoms that can initiate 1 of a 100 different ways. Yet, don't want to provide simple details that would allow a simple and quick answer.

Here's your simple answer: Don't know

Heres a better one: Try using a Preset (iphone) and don't modify it. Then lets see how long it takes.
I've tried that, I've read the documentation, I tried my own preset. It still takes hours.

peterjcat
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:00 pm

Post by peterjcat » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:03 am

Here are some tips:

1. 2-pass takes around twice as long as 1-pass.
2. AVC/H.264 can easily take 4 times as long as MPEG-4.

So, a single pass of MPEG-4 video will be 8x faster than your current settings. The quality won't be as good but you might not be able to tell the difference on a screen that size.

Most of the HB presets tend to go for optimal efficiency within the constraints of the device selected, rather than for encoding time. As has been said in another thread, H.264 is the way of the future but the hardware is still catching up. In the meantime, if you're in a big hurry there's no shame in using MPEG-4.

eddyg
Veteran User
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:34 am

Post by eddyg » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:03 am

Basically video encoding is slow, you can speed things up by:

1) Getting a faster computer
2) using settings that don't require as much CPU

You probably don't want to go down the route of (1), so given that you want (2) try to trim the number of passes from 2 to 1, and turn off some of the advanced options.

Maybe start with the iPod Low preset and then add things in from the iPod High until you reach a compromise, then save that as your preset.

This will impact the quality, but maybe not so much as you would notice, and if you do, enable more options until you arrive back at the iPod high preset.

Only encode one chapter at a time during testing to speed things up, choose a short chapter (use the Activity Window to determine a short chapter).

Cheers, Ed.

pylon
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:34 am

Generic Answer

Post by pylon » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:05 pm

Simple answer:

Turn down your settings, buy a faster computer or increase your file sizes.

More complex but obvious answer:

Your question so generic and the information about the problem so sparse that it is hard to answer. Others will not give the following answer because it is obvious and they have been asked too many times.

Unless there is something really odd going on, the amount of time an encode takes is directly related to the settings. Using the most advanced settings can result in really long encodes even on current top end computers. Using the most basic of settings you should be able to get to below real-time encode times given that you have a decent <1year old computer. The factors to consider in adjusting your settings are:

1) How much time do you have to encode. Overnight then 8-10hours is okay. If you need it in 2hrs then nix fancy stuff.

2) What is your target. If your playback device is weak then some of the advanced setting will choke it. Some software will choke on certain advanced settings too.

3) What is your tolerance for picture quality. Perhaps the lever you need to pull is the bit rate. You can get better quality by increasing file size without increasing encode times.

In other words nothing is free. You can buy a faster computer, you can increase the size of your files and buy a larger hard drive or you can use reasonable settings for your current hardware and be patient. HB is truly an impressively fast encoding solution. If other solutions are faster they are probably using lower settings which you could do just as well with HB.

davecatt
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:29 am

Post by davecatt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:48 pm

appreciate it guys, I've cut it down to about 2 hours or so I think thats the best I'm going to get.

mikecool493
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:34 am

Post by mikecool493 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:47 pm

What is with the hostility around here lately? Everyone (including the moderators and developers) seem very edgy lately.

I thought this was a place to ask for help and to give help. :) Everyone just needs to relax and laugh a little bit... haha.

davecatt: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/W ... ly/mac_pro

<3

stmiller
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:16 pm

Post by stmiller » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:04 am

The hostility is that this question is asked again and again and again, over and over.

extract
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:45 pm

Re: Handbrake taking 10+ hours?!

Post by extract » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:17 pm

davecatt wrote:I just started using Handbrake because my buddies told me how quick and easy it was for them. For some reason though it takes my Handbrake 10+ hours to rip a dvd for an iPod Touch. I have attached a picture of my settings....any solutions?
Here are a few tips to make your encoding faster:

1. Do you have enough memory installed? You can use apps like MenuMeters to see if you still got free RAM when encoding.

2. Renice HandBrake to -20 (maximum CPU use), do it in the terminal or use Nicer 2.1b (it's from 2001 but works great!).

3. Shut down other apps when running HandBrake. If Dashboard has been activated you need to reboot to shut down all the widgets.

4. Try a less demanding coding, turn off advanced coding settings for X.264/AVC or you may go for FFMPEG or XVID MPEG-4 instead.

5. Do you have more than one computer? Try using both/all computers to encode, they can each work on their title or range of chapters from a title. QuickTime Pro can join the chapters.

6. Rip the DVD prior to encoding it.

7. Try encoding in smaller size, eg. 640 pix width.

8. When you find a good encoding setting, remember to save it to presets.

baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:32 am

davecatt wrote:iMac 1.9 GHz PPC G5
I suspect it's actually a 1.85Ghz. either way, there is your problem. With the settings you are using I can see 10+ hours. Don't feel bad, in my iBook G4 it would take over 20.

Ghostface
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:00 am

Post by Ghostface » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:17 am

I've been using Handbrake (v 0.7.1) for well over a year (since Feb 2006 to be exact). Today I downloaded the latest version (v 0.9.1) and tested it out using the exact same settings I had been using before with the old version, and it was ridiculously slow. On the current version I got 4 fps whereas before I was getting at least 20 fps.

mp4
ffmpeg
29.97 FR
1100 bit rate
dual-pass
480x368
Deinterlaced
128 bit audio
48000 kHz

Both of my Macs are PPC (PPC = [Censored]-Poor Computer?), so perhaps the solution is to get a new computer, but until that happens I'll just stick to the older version of HB. Guess as they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:05 pm

HB has came a looonnng way since then. You may want to read up on the documentation. Most likely its the deinterlace setting thats killing you. Deinterlacing has been revamped and I don't believe the default settings are the same.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:28 pm

Ghostface wrote:tested it out using the exact same settings I had been using before with the old version, and it was ridiculously slow. On the current version I got 4 fps whereas before I was getting at least 20 fps.
There is absolutely no way you were using the settings you claim you were using, nor using the same in both versions. Your post is *highly* misleading.

I just used the exact settings you posted on my PPC. 0.7.1 gives 87fps, 0.9.1 gives 110fps.

Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:34 pm

Hell, there I go believing people again...

Ghostface
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:00 am

Post by Ghostface » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:03 am

jbrjake wrote:
Ghostface wrote:tested it out using the exact same settings I had been using before with the old version, and it was ridiculously slow. On the current version I got 4 fps whereas before I was getting at least 20 fps.
There is absolutely no way you were using the settings you claim you were using, nor using the same in both versions. Your post is *highly* misleading.

I just used the exact settings you posted on my PPC. 0.7.1 gives 87fps, 0.9.1 gives 110fps.
guess you have a faster "[Censored]-poor computer" than i do [G4 "sawtooth" w/ 1.4 CPU upgrade].. when i tried to use the same settings with 0.9.1 it was a lot slower.. that's a fact.

btw, with handbrake i've created over 100+ mp4s from VIDEO_TS folders, always using the same settings i previously posted.

And speed isn't my primary concern, video quality is, it's just that i don't want to use a version that takes longer than what i'm used to. i use dual pass encoding and deinterlace the video because the output looks much nicer in my average lay person's opinion.

and yes I know transcoding video takes a long time, that's why i'm thankful for the "queue" option -- i just create a queue and leave my computer on all night..

really, there's no point in posting on this board just to get bashed or read about how misleading my posts are, believe what you want. the old version of handbrake was an awesome program, but i won't upgrade to the new one until i get a new computer.

baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:28 am

Ghostface wrote:really, there's no point in posting on this board just to get bashed or read about how misleading my posts are, believe what you want. the old version of handbrake was an awesome program, but i won't upgrade to the new one until i get a new computer.
Ok, good for you. You told us. Bye-bye then....

SpySeeTuna
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:51 am

Apple TV Setting Takes 12 hours?

Post by SpySeeTuna » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:46 am

I'm using the Apple TV default settings and it's taking 12 hours to rip & encode "Rise of the Silver Surfer". Here's the specs for my iMac:

2GHz PowerPC G5
2GB DDR SDRAM
OS X Version 10.4.10

I also make sure to quit all of the other apps that I'm not using to free up memory.

I don't really mind that it takes this long but I'm curious to know what kind of encoding times other HandBrake users are experiencing with the Apple TV settings.

BTW, I tried using the MTR + HB method and I see no difference in the amount of time it takes to encode.

Thanks guys and please go easy on me, it's my first post.

dynaflash
Veteran User
Posts: 3820
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:19 pm

Post by dynaflash » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:45 am

Very possible that it could take that long. The AppleTV uses some fairly procesor intensive x264 options to help maximize quality while keeping file size reasonable.

If you want to compare speeds, try the benchmarks forum and find one with a computer like yours, hopefully others have reported their speeds.

dynaflash
Veteran User
Posts: 3820
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:19 pm

Post by dynaflash » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:51 am

Ghostface wrote:And speed isn't my primary concern, video quality is, it's just that i don't want to use a version that takes longer than what i'm used to. i use dual pass encoding and deinterlace the video because the output looks much nicer in my average lay person's opinion.
Whoa there, you *always* use deinterlacing? Even on content that is not interlaced ? Bad idea.

On the new version, what deinterlacer were you using ? The deinterlacers in the latest version are much better than the crappy one in 0.7.1, *but* they are much slower. That may likely account for the speed difference.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:37 pm

Ghostface wrote:guess you have a faster "[Censored]-poor computer" than i do
That makes zero sense. The point of the numbers I posted wasn't the speeds themselves, it was the *difference* between them. 0.9.1 is faster.
always using the same settings i previously posted.
I *really* doubt this. If I had to guess, I'd say you're starting off from 0.9.1's default settings, and aren't noticing that it uses x264 instead of ffmpeg.

Understand that we get posts like this several times a week, and every single time it turns out they were *not* using the same settings.
And speed isn't my primary concern, video quality is
You deinterlace progressive content because you're concerned with video quality?!
it's just that i don't want to use a version that takes longer than what i'm used to.
Trust me. If you use *the exact same settings* in 0.7.1 and 0.9.1, *0.9.1 will be faster*. I tested this for you and everything. It is backed up by countless posts in the Benchmarks forum.

Post Reply