Video card choice to improve render times with VS 11?

Moderator: Ken Berry

2Dogs
Advisor
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Katrinaland

Wow!

Post by 2Dogs »

etech6355 wrote:So using the P4-2.8Ghz computer when I convert all my VHS tapes to AVCHD format it's only going to take a mere 6 months to render the videos on that computer.

Using an Intel Q6600 quad running Vista this took 3:38 Minutes
That's incredible! I knew the Q6600 was good, but .... 6 months on the P4 2.8 and less than four minutes on the Q6600! And where did you get those high def VHS tapes? :lol:

Seriously though, 45 minutes of HD video on a single layer disc sounds pretty useful. Perhaps it would be less for full 1920x1080, but still worthwhile, if set top HD players do fall in price - and of course if you throw DL media into the mix, it's all quite respectable.
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
etech6355
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:24 am
Location: US

Post by etech6355 »

Perhaps it would be less for full 1920x1080,
It's the total average bit rate that determines this, not the framesize. Bigger framesizes requires higher bit-rates to retain quality because they contain more pixels (more information).

Actually this is interesting as to the future of High Defintion relating to Home Videos.
Right now if we shoot in High Definition we may make DVD's because everyone has a dvd player, so we make dvd's to distribute the videos, even though they originate from High Definition.

If you take the original HDV recordings and use dvd bit-rates you have the same playing lengths as dvd's with regards to bit-rates & dvd sizing. The plus side is the resolution is far better than dvd except it's not high quality high def like the original source videos. But you have to view the video for a short time to realize it's not quite as good as the original footage.
So if you encode 1440x1080 at 8000kbs (8MBS) VBR the average bit-rate flows at approx 5MBS.
Do the calculation on 5MBS total average bit rate and you come out with 37.5 MBytes Per Minute which is 112 Minutes on a single layer dvd.
The video is very acceptable and much better than dvd.
112 Minutes of home video is probably to much for myself or someone else to watch the full dvd.
Most P4-2.8Ghz or 3.2Ghz computers will play these dvd's that average 5MBS.
Not everyone has a fast computers yet to playback the real avchd 15MBS videos, not to mention the video card & playback software.

When you encode with the ulead software to the H264 codec it's not like encoding mpeg2 for dvd's.
For example, when I chain some video clips together I'll put a 5 to 10 second screen ahead of each video to describe the video. It's usually white lettering on a black background. Now the H264 encoder is set to encode at 18MBS variable bit rate. When the text screens are displayed the video-bit-rate drops to about 500kbs, then when the video starts playing the video-bit-rate jumps to 11MBS-12MBS. I'd say that's very efficient encoding.
So this is an indication that to shoot the best videos for avc/h264 encoding to use a tripod. Using a tripod will reduce complete frames from being re-encoded because of the way most persons shoot a home video (shaking and all). This way only the true motion gets the attention of the encoding, reducing the average bit rate yet still retaining quality.

Many Blu-Ray Movies are encoded using the AVC/H264 codec. These blu-ray movies average between 25MBS upto 35MBS of avc/h264. This is alot of information to process at these bit-rates, maybe a good reason why they are still so expensive. Blu-Ray players are actually computers, they take awhile to turn on & play (bootup) because they need to copy their ROM/BIOS information to RAM for fast execution. Actually they boot up pretty slow.
lespurgeon
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:01 am

THANKS...

Post by lespurgeon »

Well,
I'm expecting a Blu-Ray drive to be in the $200 range in the next year. That is about the point when I will buy into a writer. I noticed, I think it was Warner Brothers (might be wrong) dropping HD-DVD support, so I'm starting to think Blu-Ray will win. Nice in some ways, but the region-encoding is a huge pain for those of us with US & Asia media, but that is a different thread.

The P4 was notoriously slow for media rendering (audio and video). C2D being 10 times faster would not surprise me. 100x faster, I'd be surprised. I built several Athlon, then X2 workstations over the years while Intel was messing around with the P4 idea. Took them several years to toss that out and introduce C2D, but what a major turn-around for them.

I think I'll toss in the ATI card and keep a firewire port open for a Blu-ray writer and see if I can get another year out of this Shuttle SN25. Hope to be back in the mainland US by then and have room for a full-size workstation again.

BTW, Total off-topic, but I noticed Dell has its new 3008WFP monitor out (have to search their site, it isn't linked yet). Fixes all the problems with the 3007. If only they would cut the price in half (I'll give them 6 months) that would make one nice videoworkstation monitor (mind you, I would rather ulead got proper dual-monitor support).
2Dogs
Advisor
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Katrinaland

Re: THANKS...

Post by 2Dogs »

lespurgeon wrote:Well,
I'm expecting a Blu-Ray drive to be in the $200 range in the next year. That is about the point when I will buy into a writer. I noticed, I think it was Warner Brothers (might be wrong) dropping HD-DVD support, so I'm starting to think Blu-Ray will win. Nice in some ways, but the region-encoding is a huge pain for those of us with US & Asia media, but that is a different thread.
It may turn out to be a black day for the consumer. Some say that HD-DVD is now dead, which will tick off the 750,000 in the US who bought a player. Sony will then have a monopoly, which is worrisome. Regional coding for HD cannot be justified, since there is no PAL/NTSC divide, but a common standard throughout.
lespurgeon wrote:The P4 was notoriously slow for media rendering (audio and video). C2D being 10 times faster would not surprise me. 100x faster, I'd be surprised. I built several Athlon, then X2 workstations over the years while Intel was messing around with the P4 idea. Took them several years to toss that out and introduce C2D, but what a major turn-around for them.
I actually bought my P4c because in media encoding in particular, it was superior to the Athlon. With the introduction of the 64 bit K8, AMD took the lead again. Whilst it would be nice if a C2D could render at 10x the speed of a P4, in fact I'd estimate the factor to be "only" up to 3x.
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
Post Reply