Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FPS rates when converting DVD with Handbrake...
- Thread starter netdog
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Before comparing your hardware, you two should point out at which video resolution you are ripping, to which format (MPEG-4 or H.264), which audio format (.avi with MP3 or .mp4 with AAC), subtitles, bitrates, etc.
On my Mac mini G4/1.42GHz, ripping to .mp4 in 720x400 (or native height), H.264 video with quality setting at 60% and ACC audio at 128kbps, I get an average of 4 to 8 FPS.
Yes, it's that slow.
On my Mac mini G4/1.42GHz, ripping to .mp4 in 720x400 (or native height), H.264 video with quality setting at 60% and ACC audio at 128kbps, I get an average of 4 to 8 FPS.
Yes, it's that slow.
It seems like the right fps for the iMac. The h.264 will use a lot of rescources on your computer for the encoding. When gavd is getting 85 fps, he's not using the h.264 codec.
I've been testing Handbrake 0.8.5b on all the computers at work and find it about half as fast as Mediafork when using H.264 encoding.
On the C2D machines it was encoding at about 12fps whereas Mediafork was encoding at upwards of 24fps. Both at the same settings (I wanted to be as scientific as I could)
Same story on the Mac Pro (~20fps vs 40fps with Mediafork).
So download Mediafork and try that, I think the current beta of Handbrake might be having some issues.
On the C2D machines it was encoding at about 12fps whereas Mediafork was encoding at upwards of 24fps. Both at the same settings (I wanted to be as scientific as I could)
Same story on the Mac Pro (~20fps vs 40fps with Mediafork).
So download Mediafork and try that, I think the current beta of Handbrake might be having some issues.
0.71 was so much faster. I got 13 fps on my iMac G4 for MPEG-4!
No Apple TV default though. I noticed that newer versions (HB and MediaFork) ran slower than old 0.71. No clue though...
No Apple TV default though. I noticed that newer versions (HB and MediaFork) ran slower than old 0.71. No clue though...
This was using my external FW 16x DVD-R/RW drive as well. You might be running into a bottleneck using the slot drive on the newer iMacs.
These were MTR rips converting off the HDD. I got roughly the same speed using the slot loading drive. Seriously quick though compared with my iBook, can't wait to upgrade.
TV settings, as I still use Media Fork and dont have Yeah, you're right - I wasn't using h.264.
Maybe it would have been better if I hadn't commented given that I couldn't remember what the presets were!
Depends. What really slows it down is if you have another program, like DVD player, trying to read the DVD at the same time. Watching Youtube at the same time will slow it down as well. RAM and video RAM doesn't matter whatsoever for Handbrake, just raw CPU power. Check Activity Monitor how much CPU time is used by Handbrake. Normally it should be something like 180% to 190% used by Handbrake, and probably something close to 30 FPS using H.264. Another reason for slowdown would be a particularly nasty copy prevention mechanism on the DVD or a dirty DVD.
If you want to convert many DVDs, I'd recommend Mac The Ripper to do the ripping, and then let Handbrake do the conversion over night. That way you don't have to sit on the computer that long, and it reduces the wear on the DVD drive as well.
I see about the same FPS on my 24" C2D iMac (depends on the movie). I believe the reason for the slower encoding (and the apparent loss of speed compared to the previous beta version) is because of the advanced x264 options added in the Apple TV Preset in Handbrake 0.8.5b.
In the Apple TV preset there are some additional parameters that you cannot see in the GUI menu that are used to increase the quality while keeping the file size lower.
I believe (without even suggesting that I understand any of the settings) that the slow-down is somewhere in there.
To test this theory, you could first note the encode speed with the Apple-TV preset. Then you could re-encode the same move starting with the Apple-TV preset, and then checking and un-checking something (such as 2-pass encoding) in the interface. This will effectively remove those extra presets, and you could then compare the encoding speed. You could also compare the final results if you let it go all the way through.
Here is a Handbrake forum thread with more info on the preset issue I am trying to explain.
In the Apple TV preset there are some additional parameters that you cannot see in the GUI menu that are used to increase the quality while keeping the file size lower.
Code:
bframes=3:ref=1:subme=5:me=umh:no-fast-pskip=1:no-dct-decimate=1:trellis=2To test this theory, you could first note the encode speed with the Apple-TV preset. Then you could re-encode the same move starting with the Apple-TV preset, and then checking and un-checking something (such as 2-pass encoding) in the interface. This will effectively remove those extra presets, and you could then compare the encoding speed. You could also compare the final results if you let it go all the way through.
Here is a Handbrake forum thread with more info on the preset issue I am trying to explain.
Using the create chapter markers will slow it down a bit.
Any typical iMac C2D encoding to h.264 will/should "average" about 24 FPS.
ymwv depending on the source and the end quality.
Sounds right.
H.264 takes a *LOT* of horsepower to encode. If you want faster encoding, and are willing to put up with some quality loss (or much larger files,) use MPEG-4 instead of H.264.
And the DVD drive speed won't be an issue. Even 85 fps is only just under 4x speed; and the slowest DVD drives in any Intel Mac read commercially-pressed DVDs at at least 8x.
Yes, the doubled "at at" is correct grammar.
H.264 takes a *LOT* of horsepower to encode. If you want faster encoding, and are willing to put up with some quality loss (or much larger files,) use MPEG-4 instead of H.264.
And the DVD drive speed won't be an issue. Even 85 fps is only just under 4x speed; and the slowest DVD drives in any Intel Mac read commercially-pressed DVDs at at least 8x.
Yes, the doubled "at at" is correct grammar.