View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
hellerbrewing
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Wed 4 Oct 2006, 20:33 Post subject: DVD -> WMV9; should I deinterlace? |
|
|
This is the first of many questions I am likely to have.... I have my MCE 2005 PC set up to stream to my XBOX 360 and I am trying to convert my DVDs to WMA9 files using TMPGenc Xpress 4.0. I noticed that the option to deinterlace in the filters section is checked by default. Should I be leaving it interlaced or is it better to deinterlace. I am currently running on a 32 inch CRT television, but I am planning on going to HD in the future. The first DVD that I tried took 28 hours to encode, and I am trying to cut that time down significantly on future DVDs. I think a large portion of this might have been due to the cropping that I set up, though I have not verified this yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RMN Site Admin
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Posts: 587 Location: Lisboa, Portugal
|
Posted: Sat 7 Oct 2006, 5:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Deinterlacing will make you lose half the vertical resolution, and will make motion less fluid. In other words, it's a bad idea unless you're creating files to be watched exclusively on PC monitors.
If your DVDs are 24 fps, they're not interlaced to begin with. If they are 30 fps with pulldown, then applying reverse pulldown (a "special" kind of deinterlacing) will restore the original frames, and will let you save a 24 fps file (typically a bit smaller than a 30 fps file), but you might have sync issues, so you're probbly better off just leaving it as it is.
Your render times seem a bit excessive. What is your CPU model and speed?
RMN
~~~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hellerbrewing
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Tue 10 Oct 2006, 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the reply. My processor is an Athlon XP 3000+ (333 Mhz FSB), I think it runs at 2.2 Ghz. I am also running 768 Mb of ram, but I am planning to upgrade to 2 GB as soon as I can afford it. I noticed that TMPGenc defaults to a "Deinterlace as necessary" setting, so I am not sure if it is doing it or not. I removed the cropping from the filters and it brought the time estimate down to 3 hours, however I noticed that the estimated time continually increased throughout the process. It ended up taking about 10 hours to finish. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RMN Site Admin
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Posts: 587 Location: Lisboa, Portugal
|
Posted: Fri 13 Oct 2006, 3:00 Post subject: |
|
|
While not a top-of-the-line CPU, a XP 3000+ should be faster than that. Is your output size identical to your input size? It seems that something is forcing TMPGEnc to do a lot of processing. If it's not a filter, maybe it's resizing.
Either that or you have some other application using a lot of your CPU power. Try right-clicking on the taskbar, then select "Task Manager", and check your CPU load (before starting TMPGEnc; after you start it, TMPGEnc should use nearly all available cycles).
RMN
~~~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|