Hi: My project was 1920 1080 ProrRes 422, going to the web. The TRT of the video was 2:10. It was taking more than 50 minutes for an h.264. I finally decided to use Media Ecnoder and it did the job in 8 minutes. Any ideas what could take so long?

Thanks'

You didn't mention what computer you were using, or what software you were using originally. Even with FCP Export Using QuickTime Conversion, a 2:10 H.264 file on a Quad Mac Pro should only take two to five minutes. And MPEG Streamclip single-pass would take 30 to 45 seconds.


www.derekmok.com

Sorry, 17' MBP, 4 gig Ram. I tried both, FCP and Compressor. I also tried a self contained QT export. I tried Compressor as well. Also, just for testing, I brought in some old DV footage cut it down to 2:10 and same thing up to 50 minutes for an h.264. I then cut it down to a 1:10 and it went down to 35 minutes.

Thanks'

Use MPEG Streamclip instead. It's free.


www.derekmok.com

Frame controls. The default setting in Compressor is set to deinterlace when encoding to h.264. That is more processor intensive. Also, use Qmaster to make full use of your multiple processors.



www.strypesinpost.com

strypes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frame controls. The default setting in Compressor
> is set to deinterlace when encoding to h.264. That
> is more processor intensive.

You are right. But still 50 minutes for a 2:10 video? I don't get it.

On a single proc operation running optical flow analysis and a resizing algorithm on 2 pass encoding of h.264 in 32 bit float conversion.. That would take some juice. Compressor is notoriously slow when you are resizing or deinterlacing.



www.strypesinpost.com

...you STILL told us nothing about your computer except how large the screen is and how much RAM you have. H264 encoding is not on the RAM...it's on the processor(s) / cores / threads.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

grafixjoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...you STILL told us nothing about your computer
> except how large the screen is and how much RAM
> you have. H264 encoding is not on the RAM...it's
> on the processor(s) / cores / threads.


2.8 ghz core 2 duo

You also did not mention your H264 settings. We need all the details.

Your processors are gagging. The newer i7 quad cuts that render time down to less that half. 4 cores and 4 virtual cores (8 total) all cooking at once. I had a 2.8 Core 2 Duo and it sucked with H264s. The i7 is night and day.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

>The i7 is night and day

Agreed.

I won't say it chokes. Compressor has a better resizing algorithm than Media Encoder, although I think Media Encoder uses CUDA for faster encoding of h.264.



www.strypesinpost.com

...compared to the i7, it chokes.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Just use Media Encoder. It's way faster than Compressor as it's 64bit and uses all cores without setting up a cluster. Easy to use too.

HI KEV!!

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Wazzzup?

Hey Kev...check your email my friend...

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I have media encoder CS4 is it 64 Bit? I don't think so But my Compressor 4 is 64bit i think. But the reason I was in this thread and I try not to hijack it, Is there a better image format to use as a bug that renders faster than one or the other like does a JPEG take longer then a PSD file or TIFF?

------------------------
Dean

"When I see you floating down the gutter I'll give you a bottle of wine."
Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.

Jpeg employs lossy compression. Tiff and tga employs lossless compression.



www.strypesinpost.com