HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

General questions or discussion about HandBrake, Video and/or audio transcoding, trends etc.
Deleted User 11865

Re: HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

Post by Deleted User 11865 »

rollin_eng wrote:
So target size is VERY useful for me
Why?
It doesn't matter. The feature isn't coming back.
jamiemlaw
Veteran User
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:52 pm

Re: HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

Post by jamiemlaw »

Rodeo wrote:
rollin_eng wrote:
So target size is VERY useful for me
Why?
It doesn't matter. The feature isn't coming back.
It's useful to get to the root of why people like using Target File size as it makes it possible to recommend the best alternative, be it to switch to ABR or CQ with certain settings, or to find another converter. Or an online calculator.
rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 4840
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

Post by rollin_eng »

jamiemlaw wrote:It's useful to get to the root of why people like using Target File size as it makes it possible to recommend the best alternative, be it to switch to ABR or CQ with certain settings, or to find another converter. Or an online calculator.
Exactly.
obsidian9
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:30 pm

Re: HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

Post by obsidian9 »

I do miss the target file size option, but it's not a deal breaker. Bitrate calculators combine w/ ABR i've found actually tend to be a lot more accurate in hitting the designated file size anyways, and makes me as a user become more involved with handbrake, forcing me to be more educated. The only reason I even worry about target file size is the my primary movie watching machines are the 3 xbox 360s strewn about the house, and they have 2 hard limitations. 1: 4GB file size & 2: not much more than 10Mbps on a non-WMV file. So for very long or very high action films (King Kong, and of the Transformers, or Avatar) the CQ settings produce a file that excedes the software limitations of my hardware. So I have to calculate a bitrate to make a file just a hair smaller than 4GB.

Also, has anyone noticed that 0.9.6 seems to not take advantage of hyperthreading as well as 0.9.5. using the same presents (a slightly modified version of high profile), my CPU usage isn't as high as before and my fps seem to be down by 10% by comparison. Working w/ a single chip quad core Mac Pro, and CPU usage is generally only in the 550-650% range instead of the 750%+ with 0.9.5.
TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

Post by TedJ »

obsidian9 wrote:Also, has anyone noticed that 0.9.6 seems to not take advantage of hyperthreading as well as 0.9.5. using the same presents (a slightly modified version of high profile), my CPU usage isn't as high as before and my fps seem to be down by 10% by comparison. Working w/ a single chip quad core Mac Pro, and CPU usage is generally only in the 550-650% range instead of the 750%+ with 0.9.5.
I'll wager this difference is entirely due to the changes in the default decomb filter; while it's results are much improved over the 0.9.5 defaults it is significantly slower. If you were happy with the old decomb settings they're available as decomb "fast" and for progressive sources (i.e. most current feature films on DVD) you can switch decomb off altogether.

This was covered in the 0.9.6 release notes.
obsidian9
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:30 pm

Re: HandBrake 0.9.6 Discussion Thead

Post by obsidian9 »

I had made note of that, & since I've recently migrated to blu-ray ripping, I just turned the video filters off entirely. Right now I'm encoding The Muppets, & am only hitting 450-600%. Up to a little over half of my CPU's potential power is not being tapped to perform encoding duties.
Locked