2007 Harpertown Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard With New Graphics Cards 8-Core Mac Pro

[Nugget]

1000k (lower case k) = 1K (Capital K). It was never a mistake. It was your mis-reading my capital K as a lower case k.

Are you sure you're not just confused and you're really thinking of the distinction between kbps and kBps (bits per second vs. bytes per second)?

I've never seen anyone claim a distinction between k and K. It doesn't make any sense at all. k and K both just stand for "kilo"

 

[krunk]

I haven't found a difference between 'K' and 'k' as the definition of Kilo-.

They seem to be interchangeable.

http://www.bipm.org/en/si/prefixes.html

An upper case 'k' doesn't even show up.

The distinction is between bytes and bits. A kilobyte is represented by KB, Kb, kB, or Kbyte while a kilobit is represented by kb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobytes

If you are a hard drive manufacturer 1000 kilobits equals 1 kilobyte. This was done as a marketing ploy so they can claim more space then the drive actually is. If your anyone else in the world, 1024 kilobits equals 1 kilobyte.

 

[lali]

I'm dealing with off air ATSC HD broadcast recordings done with EyeTV.

Thanks for the explanation.

What about the speed of your Mac Pro compared to an iMac 2.8/4GB ?
I know it's much faster, but in practical terms, from a encoding point of view, what can you do with a Mac Pro that you cannot do with an iMac? How much faster is it?

This is the last time I ask, I promise!

Thanks

François

 

[Nugget]

The distinction is between bytes and bits. A kilobyte is represented by KB, Kb, kB, or Kbyte while a kilobit is represented by kb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobytes

If you are a hard drive manufacturer 1000 kilobits equals 1 kilobyte. This was done as a marketing ploy so they can claim more space then the drive actually is. If your anyone else in the world, 1024 kilobits equals 1 kilobyte.

No, this is wrong too.

b is bit and B is byte.

KB or kB is kilobytes.

Kb or kb is kilobits. (although kb is somewhat ambiguous, because it could just be a lazy typer).

You're thinking of the distinction between MB (megabyte) and MiB (mebibyte). MiB was a proposed alternative to MB which attempts to resolve the ambiguity between 1024x1024 and 1000x1000 which, as you remark, is sort of an intentional ambiguity that hard drive manufacturers like to use.

MiB as a unit hasn't really been embraced by people, though, and the only time I've ever encountered it in real life is by people who wish everyone would start using it.

 

[netdog]

k and K = kilo or 1000

B = Bytes (1 Byte=8 bits)
b = bit

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Multimedia]

Toast & Handbrake Can Use All 4 Cores At Once

Thanks for the explanation.

What about the speed of your Mac Pro compared to an iMac 2.8/4GB ?
I know it's much faster, but in practical terms, from a encoding point of view, what can you do with a Mac Pro that you cannot do with an iMac? How much faster is it?

Twice as fast. I told you they both use all 4 cores at once. That's why I need 8 cores. Handbrake can use all 8 cores at once. Perhaps Toast too.

To clear up the k or K bps thing, I shoot for 1000 kbps for HD and 800 kbps for SD or a 100MB Target size for 20 minute cartoons which is about 500-600 kbps. Also the new Handbrake 0.9.1 finally fixed the bug between the Target size (MB) and the Average bitrate (kbps) fields. They are now fully interactive between Target and bitrate fields like they used to be - bitrate changes when you change the Target size field but not vice versa. i.e. A new bitrate size will not change the Target field. So you have to fool with the Target size if you are trying to reverse engineer the bitrate according to Target size.

 

[Eidorian]

Twice as fast. I told you they both use all 4 cores at once. That's why I need 8 cores. Handbrake can use all 8 cores at once. Perhaps Toast too.

To clear up the k or K bps thing, I shoot for 1000 kbps for HD and 800 kbps for SD or a 100MB Target size for 20 minute cartoons which is about 500-600 kbps. Also the new Handbrake 0.9.1 finally fixed the bug between the Target size (MB) and the Average bitrate (kbps) fields. They are now fully interactive between Target and bitrate fields like they used to be - bitrate changes when you change the Target size field but not vice versa. i.e. A new bitrate size will not change the Target field. So you have to fool with the Target size if you are trying to reverse engineer the bitrate according to Target size.

Are you more of a fan of target size or average bitrate?

 

[Multimedia]

I Usually Use Target Size

Are you more of a fan of target size or average bitrate?

I usually use Target size of 350MB per 40±1 minute hour minus commercials. and 175MB per per half hour. But for Ads, yes I collect advertisements too, I use 1500kbps. And usually target the size of news and other SD stuff down to near 800kbps.

 

[Eidorian]

I usually use Target size of 350MB per 40±1 minute hour minus commercials. and 175MB per per half hour. But for Ads, yes I collect advertisements too, I use 1500kbps. And usually target the size of news and other SD stuff down to near 800kbps.

Now you have me tempted to pick up your hobby.

If I get a cheaper Mac I can buy all this AV hardware.

What are you using Toast for again?

 

[Multimedia]

Toast Is How You Make Broadcast Recordings Handbrake Ready

Now you have me tempted to pick up your hobby.

If I get a cheaper Mac I can buy all this AV hardware.

What are you using Toast for again?

Toast is the vehicle to get the native recordings down to MPEG2 so Handbrake can take them down the rest of the way to small mp4 files.

 

[Eidorian]

Toast is the vehicle to get the native recordings down to MPEG2 so Handbrake can take them down the rest of the way to small mp4 files.

Can't your tuner hardware do MPEG-4 at least?

I thought you were making a playable DVD in addition to what you were capturing.

I read back about your workflow so you don't need to go over the entire thing again.

 

[Multimedia]

Only Handbrake Encodes From MPEG2 Sources Shine Like Originals

Can't your tuner hardware do MPEG-4 at least?

I thought you were making a playable DVD in addition to what you were capturing.

I read back about your workflow so you don't need to go over the entire thing again.

Not like Handbrake can. The direct mp4 encodes look terrible. Plus you have no control over the crop nor the dimensions and bit rate. It's only crappy QT presets. Even manual QT encodes are crap due to lack of control.

I'm into top quality iPod & AppleTV compatible encodes that look very similar to the originals on the big 40" HDTV screen. To the best of my knowledge only Handbrake can do that.

 

[Eidorian]

Not like Handbrake can. The direct mp4 encodes look terrible. Plus you have no control over the crop nor the dimensions and bit rate. It's only crappy QT presets. Even manual QT encodes are crap due to lack of control.

I'm into top quality encodes that look very similar to the originals on the big 40" HDTV screen.

What's the original format for your ATSC HD broadcast recordings then?

I'd never user Quicktime.

 

[Multimedia]

Toast & EyeTV Are Written By The Same People

What's the original format for your ATSC HD broadcast recordings then?

I'd never user Quicktime.

They're ElGato EyeTV MPEG2 But Handbrake can't see the MPEG2 part because it's burried inside the EyeTV package file. The authors of Toast 8 are the same authors of EyeTV 2.5 based in Germany. Yeah it would be awesome if Handbrake could deal with EyeTV files directly. I don't know if they've thought about doing that or not. I never asked.

 

[Eidorian]

Their EyeTV MPEG2 But Handbrake can't see the MPEG2 part because it's burried inside the EyeTV package file. The authors of Toast 8 are the same authors of EyeTV 2.5.

I see what you're doing now.

Is there anyway to view the contents of the package? I guess they make it annoying in order to extract the raw video.

I might have to get Toast 8 at Best Buy. It's on sale and I have some RewardZone certificates around.

 

[Multimedia]

Yes You Can View The Contents With A Right Click or Control One Click

I see what you're doing now.

Is there anyway to view the contents of the package? I guess they make it annoying in order to extract the raw video.

I might have to get Toast 8 at Best Buy. It's on sale and I have some RewardZone certificates around.

Yes you can view it but not from within the Handbrake choose a source file dialog box.

 

[Eidorian]

Yes you can view it but not from within the Handbrake choose a source file dialog box.

If you can view it then why can't you move it?

I guess that Toast is the only method to extract it then?

 

[Multimedia]

I Never Tried 'Cause Audio File Is Needed Too

If you can view it then why can't you move it?

What about the audio file? You want me to move the parts out loose? How would the MPEG2 file know to point to the audio file?

 

[Eidorian]

What about the audio file? You want me to move the parts out loose? How would the MPEG2 file know to point to the audio file?

I see your point. I guess they really want to use EyeTV or Toast to export then.

 

[Spikeanator6982]

They're ElGato EyeTV MPEG2 But Handbrake can't see the MPEG2 part because it's burried inside the EyeTV package file. The authors of Toast 8 are the same authors of EyeTV 2.5 based in Germany. Yeah it would be awesome if Handbrake could deal with EyeTV files directly. I don't know if they've thought about doing that or not. I never asked.

which eyetv are you using? and which inputs are you using into it? thanks, I'm wondering because I plan to do the same as you except off of Dish network after i get a mac pro.

thanks

 

[Eidorian]

which eyetv are you using? and which inputs are you using into it? thanks, I'm wondering because I plan to do the same as you except off of Dish network after i get a mac pro.

thanks

I know that one of them is an EyeTV 500.

 

[Multimedia]

Only Off Air Recordings Work With My Method

which eyetv are you using? and which inputs are you using into it? thanks, I'm wondering because I plan to do the same as you except off of Dish network after i get a mac pro.

Can't do it with a satellite nor cable system - only off air ATSC tuners. I have an EyeTV 500 in a Quad G5 and an EyeTV Hybrid in a DC G5. Then I edit and crush on the Mac Pro via local network mounting of the recording drives.

 

[Eidorian]

Can't do it with a satellite nor cable system - only off air ATSC tuners. I have an EyeTV 500 in a Quad G5 and an EyeTV Hybrid in a DC G5. Then I edit and crush on the Mac Pro via local network mounting of the recording drives.

Wouldn't the S-video breakout cables work for the satellite box on the Hybrid?

What do you think of the CPU encoding on the Hybrid? I'm considering that model.

 

[Multimedia]

Analog Recordings Are Ancient History That Won't Translate Into Quality

Wouldn't the S-video breakout cables work for the satellite box on the Hybrid?

What do you think of the CPU encoding on the Hybrid? I'm considering that model.

Analog recordings defeat the purpose and will come out way inferior to native HD recordings from the ATSC tuner.

Only alternative that can work is QAM Digital Channels on a cable system. But most cable systems are not doing unscrambled QAM yet. But I will buy the HDHomeRun networked tuners next.

 

[Spikeanator6982]

Analog recordings defeat the purpose and will come out way inferior to native HD recordings from the ATSC tuner.

Only alternative that can work is QAM Digital Channels on a cable system. But most cable systems are not doing unscrambled QAM yet.

I just read that no eyetv products can accept digital signals from satelite..so..


what do you recommend if anything to get digital signals of of satelite? or we will have to wait till eyetv makes something?


I may end up using the s-video and composite, bc thats all I can use with what I know of and plan on getting/having. when I am able I will use digital signals. I am used to watching tv, etc using analog so I dont think the quality will kill me.

Wouldn't the S-video breakout cables work for the satellite box on the Hybrid?

What do you think of the CPU encoding on the Hybrid? I'm considering that model.

Eidorian, any reason you dont plan on using the Eyetv 250 plus? it is supposed to be able to do the "encoding" in better than real time so the quality would be the same wouldn't it?




Either way I can't wait for the new mac pros...what was it that we were saying a month or so ago, seems like it was the mac pros would come out after this thread hit 1500 posts, or did we get higher than that?