Rendering withTMPEGnc, Ulead MF 2 Too Slow?

Discussion in 'Video to DVD' started by Nifty, Apr 5, 2005.

  1. Nifty

    Nifty Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    I am using Windows XP, an ATI all in one wondercard 9800 Pro and an AMD Athelon 2000+, with 512 GB Ram.
    After capturing about 1.5 hours I render the program using TMPEGnc 3.0 XP then I use TMPEGnc DVD Author before burning.
    When I render the program using TMPEGnc 3XP it takes about 9 hours regardless of setting the output to DVD NTSC or XDVD NTSC. In both cases I am using VBR and I suspect I could save some time with CBR with the corresponding loss in quality.
    The approx 9 hours to render seems excessive, is this the case?
    Am I doing somthing wrong?
    When I use Ulead Movie Factory 2 to render the same program it seems to only take about an hour. Is the output that much worse because it is so much quicker? I can see a difference but the source I am using is not good and it may be my imagination. Thanks
     
    Nifty, Apr 5, 2005
    #1
  2. rebootjim

    rebootjim Active member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    If the source isn't that good, then a 2 pass VBR encode, with the Motion Search Precision set to higest, or even high, it's a waste of time.
    Set CQ-VBR and adjust average bitrate to what you want, then set Motion Search Precision to Estimate (fast).
    Should cut the time in half, although quality will be about the same as ulead.
    Tmpgenc is (one of) the slowest encoder(s) around. It just happens to be the most used, which is a shame, because there are much better and faster encoders for about the same money.
     
    rebootjim, Apr 5, 2005
    #2
  3. Nifty

    Nifty Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    I haven't purchased the TMPGEnc yet. I am using the trial version. What other decoders would you suggest. Thanks Again
     
    Nifty, Apr 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Nifty

    Nifty Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    OK after searching around a bit it seems different encoders do different things better or worse depending on the use. I took a look and a lot of users seem to use CCE, Mainconcept,Canopus Procoder Express, Virtual Dub, Ligos etc. what is your opinion?
     
    Nifty, Apr 5, 2005
    #4
  5. rebootjim

    rebootjim Active member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Canopus Procoder first, then Mainconcept.
    CCE has a VERY poor GUI. The others are either slow, or unsupported, or have too limited options.
    Canopus Procoder Express is only $59, and one of the single best standalone encoders there is.
    Mainconcept allows even more user flexibilty, and is very fast, but can be confusing for a beginner, although it does have templates (Canopus doesn't AFAIK), and has a built in file splitter for those SVCD encodes to two or three disks. I think it's about $100.
     
    rebootjim, Apr 5, 2005
    #5

Share This Page