Multi Threaded DVD Conversion Software

[ajemm]

I use DVD Fab Platinum to convert my DVDs to h.264 for viewing on my laptop. I'm generally happy with it except that it's not multi-threaded. Conversions take anywhere for 2-3 hours depending on output quality. Does anyone know of any other software (other than Nero Recode) that will do the same thing in less time?

 

[ajemm]

anyone?

 

[NYCSTE2003]

i dont know what convert dvds to h.264 means. but cant you just copy ur dvds using something like

dvdshrink or DVDFab HD Decrypter 3.1.9.0 ? which makes them files onto your computer thne just watch with

windows media player
mplayer classic
vlc?

when i rip dvds i know it takes about 30-1hour ripping and no idea if it takes advantage of my duocores

 

[0roo0roo]

wikipedia + h.264 = enlightenment

 

[tw1164]

You could use MeGUI. I've never used dvd fab but I'm getting MeGUI would require a few more steps.

 

[TheStu]

I use Handbrake on OS X, but even it is a little slow... takes me 1.5 hours to do a 2 pass h264 encoding of a TV show into a 350MB file. They made a version for Windows, but I have no idea if it is multi-threaded (the OS X version is), though i do know that you will have to filter the file through DVD-Decrypter first (I would suggest you use RipIt4Me in conjunction, it knows what to remove) and then pass that off to HandBrake... see if that is faster at all.

 

[ajemm]

Thanks Stu. I'll try Handbrake. My goal is to convert to a 1GB file in under 2 hours. 3 hours is a bit long.

With dual core processors being commonplace you would think that programs with cpu intensive tasks would be multi-threaded by now:roll:.

 

[Nothinman]

With dual core processors being commonplace you would think that programs with cpu intensive tasks would be multi-threaded by now.

People using machines with more cores doesn't automatically make developers smarter and multithreading applications is one of the most difficult aspects of programming for most people.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

With dual core processors being commonplace you would think that programs with cpu intensive tasks would be multi-threaded by now.

People using machines with more cores doesn't automatically make developers smarter and multithreading applications is one of the most difficult aspects of programming for most people.

Actually, some tasks cant be multithreaded, right? Im not a windows programmer, but if its anything like parallelization then video coding cant be done easily with multi-cores. Unless you split the movie into two shorter ones and stitched them back together. There are too many dependencies within and between frames.

Interesting question though, im off to read up on multithreading now.

 

[Nothinman]

Actually, some tasks cant be multithreaded, right? Im not a windows programmer, but if its anything like parallelization then video coding cant be done easily with multi-cores. Unless you split the movie into two shorter ones and stitched them back together. There are too many dependencies within and between frames.

It depends on the codec, but it's possible. At the very least most apps should be encoding the audio in a separate thead by now though.

 

[TheStu]

Or, running the first pass on core 1, and then as it completes, be running the second pass on core 2.

 

[Nothinman]

If pass1 is completed what benefit would you get from running pass2 on the other core?

 

[TheStu]

No i mean that 5 minutes into pass 1, pass 2 starts up, so it is 5 minutes behind pass 1. On Handbrake, pass 1 utilizes both cores, then pass 2 starts up and utilizes both cores. I know that this would pretty much achieve the same outcome, but for programs not coded the same way

 

[ajemm]

I've played around with Handbrake for Windows and it is multi-threaded. On my desktop (listed in my sig), 1 pass took about 1 hr. 40 minutes for a 1GB file with both cores at 100%. The quality is pretty good and the video and audio are in sync. I'll play a little more to familiarize myself. Now I'm wondering how much faster I could do it if I updated my system.

 

[NYCSTE2003]

can someone explain what you guys are trying to do. i know your not trying to just rip a dvd or convert an avi into a dvd or something. what exactly are you doing?

 

[TheStu]

He owns a DVD, but he wants to be able to watch that DVD on his iPod. So, he is ripping the DVD into a .mp4 using h264 since that is a nice, high quality codec. I have found that a 350MB h264 looks significantly better on my laptop than a 350MB XviD of the exact same thing.

 

[Nothinman]

No i mean that 5 minutes into pass 1, pass 2 starts up, so it is 5 minutes behind pass 1. On Handbrake, pass 1 utilizes both cores, then pass 2 starts up and utilizes both cores. I know that this would pretty much achieve the same outcome, but for programs not coded the same way

I guess that could work as long as pass 2 is just as slow or slower than pass 1.

 

[heymrdj]

Nero Recode using AVC h.264 is still the fastest and most efficient encoder I've ever used. Pay good money to get good things.

 

[themisfit610]

I guess that could work as long as pass 2 is just as slow or slower than pass 1.

No - it doesn't. The entire point of running two passes is that you need to have ALL the info from the first pass in order to make more accurate decisions for the second pass.

Parallelizing video encoding isn't that hard in essence. x264 - a popular H.264 encoder scales very well even with 8 cores, provided you can feed it fast enough.

Typically it's achieved by splitting the video frame into separate pieces, and encoding those on each thread. You can also split the video into a few pieces, and execute multiple instances of the encoder. This is what QuEnc^n and HC^n do automatically.

Other things like motion-compensated filtering do not multithread well - yet.

If you want to encode MPEG-2 to H.264 at very high speed, learn how to setup MeGUI. Use one of its faster profiles, and make sure it's auto threading. Slower generally means lower quality - I typically let an encode run overnight to get a really good backup.

Doom9 is a great place to read about this stuff - lurk their forums. PM me on there or here with questions..

btw

Nero Recode using AVC h.264 is still the fastest and most efficient encoder I've ever used. Pay good money to get good things.

No. x264 is a lot better, and it's free. Sorry...

~MiSfit