How Long Should A Normal DVD Take?

General questions or discussion about HandBrake, Video and/or audio transcoding, trends etc.
Post Reply
seaners
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:43 am

How Long Should A Normal DVD Take?

Post by seaners »

I use the apple tv preset, and on my iBook G4, it takes about...10 hours

does anyone have a new macbook pro? because i am thinking about upgrading, and i am just wondering what kinda performance difference i could expect on hand brake

as it has taken maybe....2 months to do about 20 DVDs
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

Not what you wanted to read but due to it's advanced asymmetrical encoding, the H.264 codec is very CPU intensive. It will get better, and better, hardware support in the near future, but today if you're encoding at the average rate of 10 fps, and doing two passes, expect about 12 hours for a 2 hour movie with late model computers. This is normal.

10 hours isn't bad for your machine, even at one pass. If I were you I would prepare to buy one of the 8-cores coming up. That should knock it down to almost real-time for H.264 encoding. In the meantime, just project plan an optimal work flow routine where you set up your encoding for overnight before going to bed, work, etc. I've managed to get alot done planning/preparing my encodes for these times and have got lots done.

Think of it this way, H.264 is still a new technology, but is already ahead of what MPEG-2 was at its dawn about 10-12 years ago. I remember rendering one hour of MPEG-2 video which took over 15 hours on a computer back in the late 90s. Today, needless to say, this job would take less than 10% of that time. I'm expecting even bigger speed increases with H.264 in the future, especially since the market is adapting very quickly to it.
MichaelLAX

Re: How Long Should A Normal DVD Take?

Post by MichaelLAX »

seaners wrote:I use the apple tv preset, and on my iBook G4, it takes about...10 hours
There is an alternative to Handbrake that will work on an iBook G4 in realtime (assuming that you have USB 2.0), but we are not allowed to name it in this forum.

Every Link Goes At The Other.Commercial Online Merchant
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

I don't think we're banned from naming it, just banned from asking stupid questions about how HB can integrate with it, or even why they should.

Items like this aren't new. Other crap like this has been selling for at least a year now. And when I say "crap", I mean "crap".

Most know that there's alot of bad product out there selling for iPod/PSP/@TV conversions. Most will do one pass, which is not a CRF 1-pass that takes account of quality and motion scenes but it's really one pass of a fixed bitrate/file, which NEEDS a second pass to have insight to add quality the second time around. Just try it on HB to see what I mean. They also have other dumbed down features with very limited selection. End result: horrible video. No wonder they're "so fast". Well this item is just like that, only "faster". Big deal.

They never tell you what's under the hood either. They probably don't even know themselves. Would you trust your video with these clowns? I read their site and I can tell right away that it stinks.

I can understand why some wanted to integrate this thing with HandBrake because the options it gives suck. However I understand even more why the HandBrake Devs chose to not be a part of it.

I know an automotive body shop that only does high-end cars. They refuse business from owners of crappy cars because these vehicles ruin the shop's image.

Same idea here.

Well done HandBrake team! :wink:
MichaelLAX

Post by MichaelLAX »

PuzZLeR wrote:I don't think we're banned from naming it, just banned from asking stupid questions about how HB can integrate with it, or even why they should.

rhester wrote:next person to post about [CENSORED] earns a siteban. I'm not kidding. Friday, May 25


Items like this aren't new. Other crap like this has been selling for at least a year now. And when I say "crap", I mean "crap".

Apples and Oranges. This is the first hardware 264 encoding device for the Macintosh; not some software transcoder.

Most know that there's alot of bad product out there selling for iPod/PSP/@TV conversions. Most will do one pass, which is not a CRF 1-pass that takes account of quality and motion scenes but it's really one pass of a fixed bitrate/file, which NEEDS a second pass to have insight to add quality the second time around. Just try it on HB to see what I mean. They also have other dumbed down features with very limited selection. End result: horrible video. No wonder they're "so fast". Well this item is just like that, only "faster". Big deal.

Some people need an extensive feature set; while others find that pre-sets fulfill most of their needs.


They never tell you what's under the hood either. They probably don't even know themselves. Would you trust your video with these clowns? I read their site and I can tell right away that it stinks.

Try it and see; if the quality does not satisfy, get a refund!

I can understand why some wanted to integrate this thing with HandBrake because the options it gives suck. However I understand even more why the HandBrake Devs chose to not be a part of it.

I know an automotive body shop that only does high-end cars. They refuse business from owners of crappy cars because these vehicles ruin the shop's image.

So, if it isn't a "high-end" car, it's crappy? Somehow Toyota become the largest automobile manufacturer in the world selling, as you would put it, crappy cars!

Same idea here.

Well done HandBrake team! :wink:

No doubt that HandBrake is the Cadillac of software DVD to 264 rippers.
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

Thanks for your reply Michael,

I use a PC and items like this have been around for the PC for a while now. Yes this is the first item of its kind for the Mac. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.

Being around several forums, items like this get very bad feedback, especially from those that tried them, and this is no different. I guess the reason for this is because most of us are "power encoders". We take our encoding seriously, and items like this can be insulting. We're the "high-end" vehicle owners of video encoding.

But I should be more fair. A "solution" is a "solution" whether it's a good solution or a bad solution, as long as it's a promise fulfilled. If the "Toyota" they offer gets you to your destination, then fine. This product, bad or not, serves a purpose.

There are people out there who don't want to go through the burdensome learning curve or encoding, or simply don't know better solutions exist. They just want to put video on their iPod on the go and don't really care for quality or features, etc. They don't want to wait the hours for an encoded video that is higher quality, and would be willing to lose out on quality features, whether they know about them or not, just to have the video faster. They just want a solution, albiet not the best one, but the most convenient, and will plunk down some coin for it.

All those horrible iPod/PSP/@TV conversion software products on the market at least provide a "solution". This one does too.

And I guess that you can always return it too if it sucks. Fair enough.

Note to Mods: Nobody in this thread was stupidly requesting any features to involve you such as integrating this into HB or anything like that. We never even mentioned the "name" either. In reality, we were just pointing out facts on increasing H.264 encoding speed vs quality. Nevertheless, I'm done talking about this item anyway. :D
MichaelLAX

Post by MichaelLAX »

PuzZLeR wrote:
But I should be more fair. A "solution" is a "solution" whether it's a good solution or a bad solution, as long as it's a promise fulfilled. If the "Toyota" they offer gets you to your destination, then fine. This product, bad or not, serves a purpose.
Thank you for your reply, Puzzler

I am just curious...

To me, until I upgrade to Blu-Ray, viewing DVDs (with their MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio) upconverted to 1080i into my HD Plasma is the ultimate viewing experience for DVDs.

What is the "destination" that you use Handbrake for (since, by definition, it has to result in a product that is equal to or inferior to the original DVD that you rip from).

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

Post by PuzZLeR »

MichaelLAX wrote: What is the "destination" that you use Handbrake for ...
Sure thing. I too enjoy a similar experience and I try to "future-proof" my video as best as possible by keeping as many of the BD/HD-DvD specs as possible for that event, to minimize transcoding later. Since H.264 is a mandatory decoding feature in these players, I don't see why there wouldn't be players playing video on "data" discs as well, much like DivX and mp3 today.

However, if the source is SD, then you should stick with SD specs. The next disc formats will play SD material too. TVs will upsize this content.

As well, alot of my stuff is "homemade" from my PVR such as dish content, music videos, and VHS and camera stuff migrated. I delete the source after encoding so that's why future-proofing is important to me.

I encode in two batches: 1. iPod video, 2. My "future-proofed good stuff".

1. iPod. This video's for today's devices with obvious specs. Fully compatible and a decent backup but will be deleted when hardware advances. This is the "low-end" vehicle stuff to me.

2. My H.264 high-end "good stuff", which I will one day migrate to BD/HD-DvD. You can't do this with the "USB pen" devices.

I use Anamorphic encoding to preserve the "original feel" and encode with a minimum bitrate of 1500kbps, or a minimum Constant Quality of 60%, and higher still if I value the content more.

I use AAC Dolby Pro Logic II, or 6 Channel Discrete, depending on the source. Both sound great and should transcode easily to BD/HD-DvD's Dolby sound later. AC3 is not supported in .mp4 unfortunately.

In the Advanced Options I enter "level=41" for level 4.1 since the x264 default of 5.1 may be too high. It makes no difference in anything else, just a flag.

I use B pyramids and multiple reference frames, etc here too for my most important stuff, and although they improve quality, they slow down encoding and may harm QT compatibility. This is purely experimental to the individual here.

As far as stuff like music videos is concerned, since they are small files and rather numerous, I just encode with lighter specs even in my "good stuff" such as square pixels (640x480). Files like this are like mp3 to me, meant to be played on a computer or another "click" device.

Nothing complicated about my encoding. HandBrake makes it a snap. As well, here's the only real info on BD/HD-DvD specs that I have found and try to stick to it, as close as possible, for my "good stuff":

http://www.videohelp.com/hd

Hope it helps. I would love to know your recipe if I can grab a tip or two. :)
MichaelLAX

Post by MichaelLAX »

PuzZLeR wrote:Hope it helps. I would love to know your recipe if I can grab a tip or two. :)
WOW: I am impressed!

We are on the opposite ends of the scale (at least at this time), so it is no wonder we had different viewpoints.

I am have an extensive VHS library from the late-70's and 80's which I burn to DVDs. But my primary interest in 264 is to build a library for my soon to be acquired Apple TV. Since it is a consumer device that only goes to 720p (for now), I just want to load it up with content from both my VHS and DVD libraries. I wouldn't mind overnight transcoding, but the process goes over 24 hours consistently.

To me, then, for now, time is more important than quality, so the limitations of hardware 264 encoding are far outweighed by reducing the encoding time.

I expect the software front of the stick will improve with time, as I expect the abilities of the Apple TV to improve in time. When I can get HD quality out of the Apple TV, my focus will change to increasing the quality level of the inputted content.

One current bug that is impeding my ability to use hardware encoding is that the software recognizes episodic TV DVDs as all one long file. Trimming them down is not a problem; easily accomplished with Quicktime Pro. However, I find that the 2nd episode and thereafter has audio out of sync. So my episodic TV DVD library continues to be ripped by Handbrake.

Also, what is the difference between "anamorphic" and just letting the DVD rip to its actual aspect ratio, such as 720X480?
Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious »

You can get HD out of Apple TV now...

As far as your other question:

Read This!
MichaelLAX

Post by MichaelLAX »

Cavalicious wrote:You can get HD out of Apple TV now...
Yes, apparently only up to 720p, but the problem is getting HD content to play on the Apple TV.

Perhaps there is HD content sold on iTunes.

DVDs currently are not HD, and watching them on the Apple TV will be no greater quality experience than watching them on my upconverting (to 1080i) DVD player. So Handbrake will not provide HD content from conventional DVDs.

So the question is acquiring HD content. I suppose I could purchase a USB stick Digital TV receiver and use the Mac to DVR/PVR the programs. I would, however, much prefer to use my DirecTivo HD10-250 and my DirecTV DVR HR20-700 and get the content out to Apple TV.

I have experimented with downloading so called "HDTV" versions of content on bittorrent, but other than it being anamorphic, how do I know if it is really up to 720 or 1080 resolution? I have thrown these files into ffmpegx, but it does not seem to tell me the resolution.
Cavalicious wrote:As far as your other question [Also, what is the difference between "anamorphic" and just letting the DVD rip to its actual aspect ratio, such as 720X480?]:

Read This!
Thanks for the link (although it is a bit dated). As I suspected, the answer to my question is that there is no difference.

Here's another question: What do we "lose" when converting MPEG-2 to H.264?
Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious »

1st Part - EyeTV hybird is a good way to get HD Content on your AppleTV. Too bad its SOOOOOO SSLLLOOOOWWW when doing the convert using Quicktime's AppleTV preset. I have one and use it now and again. As far as your DirecTivo recorded shows...There is a long and drawn out way to get that done. Since it involves using a windows PC as well as a mac, I promise you its not worth it.


2nd Part - Since we convert MPEG2 to h.264 when we do DVDs, depending on your settings, you lose very little. With the settings I'm using, I have had people think they were watching a DVD (And I'm using a 720p LCD Projector on 110" screen).
MichaelLAX

Post by MichaelLAX »

Cavalicious wrote:1st Part - EyeTV hybird is a good way to get HD Content on your AppleTV. Too bad its SOOOOOO SSLLLOOOOWWW when doing the convert using Quicktime's AppleTV preset. I have one and use it now and again. As far as your DirecTivo recorded shows...There is a long and drawn out way to get that done. Since it involves using a windows PC as well as a mac, I promise you its not worth it.
As I commented above, I use hardware encoding to h.264 with Quicktime, so that it is not so slooooooowwww.

I just installed Parallels and Windows XP to my wife's Mac Book Pro. Are you sure it is not worth it?

For years I used the ADSTech DVD for Mac digitizer box to get content out of my SD DirecTiVos to burn to DVD. Now I just record to my DVD Recorder and then convert to h.264. If I can just suck the content out of my HD DirecTiVo/DirecTV DVRs and then transcode, I would save the "record in realtime" step, which is quite time and effort consuming. Also, presumably the content will be real HD, so that I could move it to my Apple TV as HD.
Cavalicious wrote:2nd Part - Since we convert MPEG2 to h.264 when we do DVDs, depending on your settings, you lose very little. With the settings I'm using, I have had people think they were watching a DVD (And I'm using a 720p LCD Projector on 110" screen).
I know that DirecTV is now using MPEG-4 for their HD content. Is that also h.264? Thanks!
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

Hey Michael,

Well, if you have a DvD version of your VHS tapes, then you will not need extensive features such as those near BD/HD-DvD. In your case I could almost recommend one of those “quickie” devices, especially since your processor is that burdened.

If/when in the future you’re ready to go towards the next-gen disc formats, your DvDs will play just fine on those machines. Or you can just copy a couple of dozen DvDs onto one BD disc. Maybe your new computer hardware will also be much more advanced as well in the future if your ready to encode them again with higher settings and compress more still onto one empty BD disc.

I believe by 2009, H.264 encoding will be at less than real time with the new chipsets and multiple processors coming out, so you would be better off encoding in CAVLC, a lighter version of H.264 for @Tv today.

Since I delete much of my source, I pretty much have to make two encodes, one for today’s devices, and the “good stuff” for tomorrow’s. I choose the iPod specs since they are today’s "common denominator". This format will play on most anything playing H.264 files, including @Tv, so it’s good for now. I will quite likely delete it in a few years anyway and just keep the “good stuff”.

As far as @Tv is concerned, the new models will get better and better. This is how the market works. It’s called skimming. They want to keep selling you again and again.

So, if I were in your shoes, I’d probably get an @Tv right now and encode the ligher H.264 versions for now. At your processing speed today, stay away from the heavier enodes. You don't need them now.

Later, you can get a better computer and a better @Tv, or BD/HD-DvD player and encode with better specs from your source and finally do away with the VHS source - and even the DvDs themselves which are already dinosaurs too.

Keep in mind, you will never get HD encodes from DvD source. Your Tv upscaling the picture will be as good as it gets given the source.
MichaelLAX wrote:One current bug that is impeding my ability to use hardware encoding is that the software recognizes episodic TV DVDs as all one long file. Trimming them down is not a problem; easily accomplished with Quicktime Pro. However, I find that the 2nd episode and thereafter has audio out of sync. So my episodic TV DVD library continues to be ripped by Handbrake.
Well if those hardware devices are creating video out of sync with audio then that is just another reason why they are crap. Ok, I couldn’t resist… :lol:

I’m in PC land and I’m not sure what Macs offer in this respect for this problem, but one way is a process called “demuxing” and “muxing”.

What you do, with an appropriate software tool, is separate the audio stream from the video stream (demuxing or demultiplexing) and then put it back together again in sync (muxing or multiplexing).

But I know not of any such beasts that can do this on the Mac. But do look into it. It's really a much easier process than it sounds.
MichaelLAX wrote:Also, what is the difference between "anamorphic" and just letting the DVD rip to its actual aspect ratio, such as 720X480?
It's about the shape of the pixels and the Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR). Ever wonder how a 4:3 source fits onto a DvD with a 720x480 rez? Do the math. It doesn't work out. That's because the pixels are more "rectangular" to fit. You would need a PAR of 8:9 mathematically to do that with calculations. In other words the shape of the pixels are 8 by 9. A square pixel has a PAR of 1:1 obviously.

Assuming the DvD is 4:3 (1.33), and you DON'T check Anamorphic PAR and encode to 720x480, HandBrake will assume square pixels and your picture will be distorted. Try the difference.

You either need to encode it to 640x480, or enable Anamorphic PAR to get a 720x480 rez that "fits". I prefer the latter as it's more "natural" with the source and will migrate easier to BD/HD-DvD later.

As well for a 16:9 (1.78 ) source you will need to encode it by 640x352 or enable Anamorphic PAR. (360 isn't accepted by HB on Windows because it doesn't divide by 16, so I choose 352.)
MichaelLAX wrote:Here's another question: What do we "lose" when converting MPEG-2 to H.264?
MPEG-2 and H.264 are both "lossy" codecs. You always lose quality when you encode to either. However, H.264 gives you the best quality per file size, and you can enjoy a smaller file size still, with only a bit of "smoothing" maybe. The higher the file size you encode, the closer the quality to the previous source, the less you lose.

It's a bit like copying from one VHS tape to another. Remember that?

What makes it more difficult in our case is that our DvDs already lost quality going from the source to MPEG-2 content initially, and will lose more when encoded again, this time to H.264. You will never get a better quality than MPEG-2 to H.264 this way unless if that source was instead encoded straight to H.264 only - then the quality at H.264 would be considerably better at 50% of the file size you would need for MPEG-2.

Keep in mind, raw uncompressed video is about 65GB per hour. HD is up to 6 times that much...

Smaller file sizes are obviously much more convenient and easier to manage so even when encoding from source to MPEG-2 to H.264 the "loss" is worth it. You can still encode the MPEG-2 video to H.264 to below 50% of the MPEG-2 file without noticing a difference. Anything lower is your choice and a compromise.
Last edited by PuzZLeR on Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

Cavalicious wrote:Since we convert MPEG2 to h.264 when we do DVDs, depending on your settings, you lose very little. With the settings I'm using, I have had people think they were watching a DVD (And I'm using a 720p LCD Projector on 110" screen).
Hello there Cavalicious. Can I get you to give us a brief description of those settings? Just curious in case I, or another reading this thread, can pick up a tip or two.

Thanks in advance!
Twentybelow
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:03 am

Re: How Long Should A Normal DVD Take?

Post by Twentybelow »

I can't believe it takes you 10 hours. It usually takes me about 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours depending on the length of the DVD. That sucks, man. It seems almost pointless to load them on if it's going to take that long.
MichaelLAX

Re: How Long Should A Normal DVD Take?

Post by MichaelLAX »

Twentybelow wrote:I can't believe it takes you 10 hours. It usually takes me about 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours depending on the length of the DVD. That sucks, man. It seems almost pointless to load them on if it's going to take that long.
What settings do you use in Handbrake? Thanks.
Cavalicious
Moderator
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:07 am

Post by Cavalicious »

PuzZLeR wrote:
Cavalicious wrote:Since we convert MPEG2 to h.264 when we do DVDs, depending on your settings, you lose very little. With the settings I'm using, I have had people think they were watching a DVD (And I'm using a 720p LCD Projector on 110" screen).
Hello there Cavalicious. Can I get you to give us a brief description of those settings? Just curious in case I, or another reading this thread, can pick up a tip or two.

Thanks in advance!
Sorry, didn't see this earlier (didn't think anyone cared :cry: )

Code: Select all

./HandBrakeCLI -i [source]  -o [destination] -T -d  -m -p -2  -e x264 -b 3000  -r 23.976  -E facc  -B 160 -R 44.1 -6 6ch -v -x bframes=3:ref=3:subq=5:me=umh:no-fast-pskip=1:trellis=2
The above is what I'm using now. Note, that you must be running svn r603 of HB or greater to use "-T"[/code]
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

@Cavalicious

Of course I care! :)

Thanks for the code! I will give it a test myself. However, if I may ask one more question - how is it with QT compatibility?

Then again, I'll know when I'm done encoding it. :D
PuzZLeR
Bright Spark User
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:01 am

Post by PuzZLeR »

@Twentybelow

You're probably encoding at a low rez such as 320x240 in Baseline profile H.264 or maybe MPEG-4. Are you?

Of course that would be much faster than, say, 640x480 H.264 Main profile.
tokyovigilante
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:33 am

Post by tokyovigilante »

To respond to the OP's question, YES! ;)

My old iBook G4 (1.33Ghz) used to take upwards of 5 hours for Xvid encodes, and I didn't even try x264. I've just got the new 2.4Ghz Santa Rosa MBP, and my x264 main profile (700mb constant file size, so around 900kbit/sec, 2-pass with x264 turbo option for the first pass) take under 2 hours (ie faster than realtime).

Also, it is the best laptop ever, you should get one if you can. The LED backlight is amazing, it's literally night and day compared to the iBook. I went with the matte screen, and it's readable in full daylight.

(Sorry for the O/T rambling, but yeah: Best. Laptop. Ever).
DaveF
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:59 am

< 1fps on new MacBook Pro

Post by DaveF »

I'm a new Mac owner and also a first time Handbrake user. From my experience with AutoGK on the PC, I expected ripping a DVD to be a pretty speedy process.

However, I'm running a brand new 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro, ripping Finding Nemo set using HB-iPod defaults, and it's reporting 0.2 fps and a completion time of 34 hours! I fiddled with other settings, and they all run at < 1fps with 2-4 days estimated to complete!

Is this normal? Does it get faster as the process moves along? I see reports of 10 - 20 fps encoding, and I'm thoroughly baffled.

Any help is appreciated!
rhester
Veteran User
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by rhester »

DaveF: Please see the "no audio" sticky thread in the support forum. You're up against copy protection.

Rodney
DaveF
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:59 am

Post by DaveF »

Thanks. The "no audio" problem resembles my problem, particularly the low CPU utilization (I was getting < 10%). Sounds like I need to try a separate ripper.
Post Reply