HandBrake VS VisualHub encoding efficiency

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by rotarypower101, Jan 21, 2009.

  1. rotarypower101 macrumors regular

    rotarypower101

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    #1
    Now that visualhub has stopped development, and handbrake is now available for many different file types, is handbrake a technologically better or more efficient encoder for converting .mov,.avi,.divx,.mkv to .mp4,.m4v ? has anyone done some empirical tests, or can make an argument one way or the other for using handbrake over Visual Hub for this type of encoding?

    I have used handbrake to do all my DVD encoding, but the ability to increase the level of the volume output is really a feature that I would miss moving over exclusively to handbrake for all my encoding jobs.

    Is there a good/easy way to increase volume output after handbrake is done encoding a file, so the level is acceptable when playing through the speaker on the iphone ? AFAIK there are no plans to make this feature available on HB.

    Also for those that use visualhub, have you migrated over to handbrake almost entirely since the new file type support, or do you still use visual hub for the bulk of your non DVD encoding?
     
  2. Idgit macrumors 6502

    Idgit

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    #2
    I'm still using VisualHub a lot because it does several things that Handbrake can't. It's faster than Handbrake. It can join files. And it doesn't strip subtitles that I've added using Submerge.
     
  3. lostless macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    #3
    Well i use both. Visualhub is very nice when you just want to covert a video you downloaded to the ipod/apple tv format. But the new handbrake does many things visualhub could never do. For one, the new detelcine works wonders to convert an interlaced film at 30FPS to the proper 24FPS. It also supports multiple frame rates, so if a source switches from 30fps to 24, it will detect it and output the resulting file as the same.
     
  4. refulgentis macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    #4
    The argument is simple -- VisualHub's is a very simple wrapper for an open source CLI program, and it last updated its encoding core in late 07/early 08. Handbrake almost weekly upgrades its encoding core in the development code, and they both use the same encoding core (x264).

    If you ask anyone knowledgeable about video encoding, they'll tell you that x264 has made drastic improvements in the last 6 months alone, much less the last year. Anyone who says VisualHub is faster is dead wrong, and not using the same options in both. VisualHub's *presets* may be faster than Handbrake's *presets*, but that's because VisualHub's presets are based on speed, while Handbrake's are based on quality (the first criteria the developers used when developing them for 0.9.3 was "transparency", i.e. as close to identical as possible from source to encode).
     
  5. dynaflash macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    #5
    VisualHub is a nice program to be sure, its an applescript wrapper for ffmpeg and has a nice interface to be sure. However as refulgentis points out, there is no way it is as fast as the current HB if you are using the *same settings* and source to compare the two in terms of speed. Its much like everyone thinking HB 0.9.3 was slower than 0.9.2 when in fact its faster setting for setting but as the release notes tell you 0.9.3 has higher quality presets. Having said that it is true that each program has features the other does not.
     
  6. TheZA macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    #6
    I can't really compare since I was sitting on the fence about purchasing VisualHub, and then it was too late. But Handbrake freakin' rules. I occasionally will use iSquint for flv to mp4, but other than that, it's all Handbrake. With the new version of Handbrake and VLC, it has significantly cut down on my use of MacTheRipper as well.
     

Share This Page