dvd-hq.info Forum Index dvd-hq.info
DVD & video forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Which Codec to use - hardware or software

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dvd-hq.info Forum Index -> Compression
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mattlynne



Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu 3 Jul 2003, 16:13    Post subject: Which Codec to use - hardware or software Reply with quote

I am new to video editing and have a simple query. I have a 2.4GB PC, 768MB memory, 120GB hard drive running Pinnacle DVD500plus Vs 4.5 and Premiere 6. The advice I have been given for compression is to use the hardware codec, and follow the Pinnacle suggested codecs. My compression ratios are about 3:1 which I don't think is great, and won't allow me to put an hour of raw video footage onto a DVD.

If the Pinnacle system is so good, why are 75% of your readers using TMPGenc - is this not just a software codec, which will take much longer to render movies Question

I would love to know what the true benefits of your encoders are over something like the Pinnacle hardware Exclamation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RMN
Site Admin


Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Posts: 587
Location: Lisboa, Portugal

PostPosted: Thu 3 Jul 2003, 18:28    Post subject: Re: Which Codec to use - hardware or software Reply with quote

Mattlynne wrote:
I am new to video editing and have a simple query. I have a 2.4GB PC, 768MB memory, 120GB hard drive running Pinnacle DVD500plus Vs 4.5 and Premiere 6. The advice I have been given for compression is to use the hardware codec, and follow the Pinnacle suggested codecs. My compression ratios are about 3:1 which I don't think is great, and won't allow me to put an hour of raw video footage onto a DVD.


What does that 3:1 refer to? Compression ratio (i.e., ratio between uncompressed size and compressed size) or encoding time (i.e., 3 hours to encode 1 hour of footage)?

I'm assuming it's the encoding time, since MPEG typically results in a compression ratio of 20:1 or more.

At the highest DVD-compliant bitrate (9.8 Mb/s), you can fit 1 hour into a DVD. If your encoder is producing a file that's too big to fit in one disc, then the file is probably not DVD-compliant. Make sure the total bitrate is under 9.8 Mb/s (this usually means 8 Mb/s for the video, 1.6 Mb/s for the uncompressed audio and 0.2 Mb/s as a safety margin).

Mattlynne wrote:

If the Pinnacle system is so good, why are 75% of your readers using TMPGenc - is this not just a software codec, which will take much longer to render movies Question I would love to know what the true benefits of your encoders are over something like the Pinnacle hardware Exclamation


Software encoders always have the possibility of producing better results (quality) than hardware encoders. This doesn't mean any software encoder is better than any hardware encoder, of course, but it's valid when you compare the main encoders.

Why? For two main reasons. The first is that software encoders can evolve. Errors can be corrected, algorithms can be tweaked. Install a new version of TMPGEnc or CCE or Ligos and you basically have a new encoder. To update a hardware encoder you need a new card. Some hardware encoders are actually programmable, and can be updated in software, but this is usually only true for the very expensive professional models.

The second reason is that hardware encoders are usually optimised for speed. Most are, in fact, designed to operate in real time (capturing and encoding at the same time). Even assuming that no compromise is made in the motion search algorithms (and usually there is a quality compromise, in order to ensure real-time compression), a hardware encoder cannot do multi-pass encoding, which is the only way to optimise bitrate distribution in low-bitrate (high-compression) movies.

So, as a general rule, if you want speed, use a hardware encoder; if you want quality, use a sotware encoder.

But a software encoder is not necessarily slower than a hardware encoder. CPUs evolve very quickly and, nowadays, a high-end workstation (ex., with two Xeon or Athlon MP CPUs) will actually be able to do high-quality software encoding in real-time. So a software encoder "scales" (improves in speed) as you upgrade your system. A hardware encoder usually will not.

You mention you have a 2.4 GHz CPU, so I assume it's a Pentium 4. Originally, TMPGEnc was very slow on Pentium 4 chips (and much faster on Athlons). Now it has been optimised for the Pentium 4 and runs more or less at the same speed on both. I don't have any Pentium 4 systems to test this on, but my guess would be that (depending on the footage), the encoding time using TMPGEnc on your system will be between 6:1 and 12:1. In other words, it will be slower than using the Pinnacle hardware, but you'll probably get much better results, especially with long movies, that must use a lower average bitrate.

RMN
~~~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dvd-hq.info Forum Index -> Compression All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group