Why encoding videos to .mp4 containers using h.264 codecs takes time?

[NoUserName 3]

You have to extract the files within...

Ok, opened now.

His post says exactly what it is... " distributed encoding "

That means it distributes the task of frame encoding over multiple computers, reducing the overall time needed by the number of computers involved. It's a technique that's used a lot in 3D rendering "render farms".

But I am only using one computer in a time for encoding, I do have 3 computers to do the encoding work but each one of them is associated with some volume files, I mean I do not know if this gonna work with me or not, I think I do need to know more about it.

With respect, if you don't know this sort of information already, I'm not sure you're in the right line of business... I have nothing to do with the media industry, but seem to know the basics more than you do...

Yes you are right that I do not know a lot about media and world of encdoing but if I told you my info threee or four months ago you will not believe where I am today.

This is the reason I am posting here to know from other people who know the more then me and step by step I know more and this is what happenning with me my friend.

But if I said that I do not know about this and I should quitm then I will not be able to do anything at all.

I am trying my best to learn.

Thanks a lot :)

It's an encoder, and a darn high quality one too. You add your .ts, .m2ts,.mkv, vob, etc. (LOTS of formats supported) and fill out the settings accordingly and it will use up to 8 separate computers to work on that one task.

Basically: Use 4 computers it's roughly 4 times faster than using 1 computer.

this is really ssound amazing but what about the time consumed to transfer file between these computers and will it vary if i am using cat5 or cat6 network cables?

[NoUserName 3]

so with RipBot264 I can do crop and choose biterate for audio and video and then make the 8 computers working on the same encoding queue ?

[Luis Mazza 172]

To encode a file with a 1 hour length using .h264 with 512k bitrate how much time does it takes?

Please advise for which hardware I should get? if my hardware not fits?

The original container is .ts and I do crop and encode into .mp4 using h.264 profile.

You'll have to test it yourself. I gave you the best software option you can get for one computer, otherwise you're talking about render farms, which are VERY expensive because of the software, maintenance and the super hardware involved.

If you want a fast enconding with a relatively cheap rig, then you should get 8 core or more servers and a GTX 680. But that is expensive too.. anyway, this is what you would have to do if you want really fast enconding time.

BTW, 512K video is very poor in quality on any codec available.

[Julius Caro 55]

The original container is .ts and I do crop and encode into .mp4 using h.264 profile.

but the container is almost irrelevant, it's the transcoding or recoding that takes time. you could be going from .ts to .ts with the cropping and everything and it will still take long

[NoUserName 3]

You'll have to test it yourself. I gave you the best software option you can get for one computer, otherwise you're talking about render farms, which are VERY expensive because of the software, maintenance and the super hardware involved.

If you want a fast enconding with a relatively cheap rig, then you should get 8 core or more servers and a GTX 680. But that is expensive too.. anyway, this is what you would have to do if you want really fast enconding time.

BTW, 512K video is very poor in quality on any codec available.

You mean to buy a new processor?

but the container is almost irrelevant, it's the transcoding or recoding that takes time. you could be going from .ts to .ts with the cropping and everything and it will still take long

like do crop and encoding to .ts and then encode to .mp4 using h.264 codec

[chezy666 0]

Try Gom encoder...

[+LogicalApex 1,747]

Yes you are right that I do not know a lot about media and world of encdoing but if I told you my info threee or four months ago you will not believe where I am today.

This is the reason I am posting here to know from other people who know the more then me and step by step I know more and this is what happenning with me my friend.

But if I said that I do not know about this and I should quitm then I will not be able to do anything at all.

I am trying my best to learn.

Thanks a lot :)

We were all new at one time or another. That is what this site, and others like it, are for. As long as you're willing to learn, as you seem to be, then keep asking questions :).

this is really ssound amazing but what about the time consumed to transfer file between these computers and will it vary if i am using cat5 or cat6 network cables?

It will matter more what the network speed is between the computes than the cable type used. To get the best speeds you'll want to have Gigabit Ethernet at a minimum between all of the nodes, including Gigabit switching equipment.

[Luis Mazza 172]

You mean to buy a new processor?

like do crop and encoding to .ts and then encode to .mp4 using h.264 codec

No... A full new computer, with dual processor motherboard and TWO new processors.

Everytime you add more processors or cores, you get more speed.

If you take 1 hour to encode in your 4 core rig, add one more processor and you divide the encoding time by two (roughly). You put a 16 core, dual 8 core processor and you divide the encoding time by 4 from the original comparison.

The only two caveats are... price and will you build the rig yourself or buy it ready? Also, get 16GB RAM minimum.

That's all I can help you with. Good luck.

[NoUserName 3]

We were all new at one time or another. That is what this site, and others like it, are for. As long as you're willing to learn, as you seem to be, then keep asking questions :).

It will matter more what the network speed is between the computes than the cable type used. To get the best speeds you'll want to have Gigabit Ethernet at a minimum between all of the nodes, including Gigabit switching equipment.

well, I've posted in the forum here before and according to advises I get from members here:

- I bought d-link gigabit lan cards pci

- d-link gigabit switch 16 port.

- all computers have cat6 cables

- using frame jumbo 7 k for all of computers.

so will this fit or I need to do something else?

No... A full new computer, with dual processor motherboard and TWO new processors.

Everytime you add more processors or cores, you get more speed.

If you take 1 hour to encode in your 4 core rig, add one more processor and you divide the encoding time by two (roughly). You put a 16 core, dual 8 core processor and you divide the encoding time by 4 from the original comparison.

The only two caveats are... price and will you build the rig yourself or buy it ready? Also, get 16GB RAM minimum.

That's all I can help you with. Good luck.

I do have 16 gb ram now.

Does there is a mother board that has two processors?

[articuno1au 1,264]

Hit network is set up for it.

Budman and a couple of us have been helping him with various technical issues for a while. He's pretty much running all he needs.

Distributed encoding isn't a bad idea if you really need the speed, although I am unsure as to how well H.264 does with parallelism.

[Luis Mazza 172]

well, I've posted in the forum here before and according to advises I get from members here:

- I bought d-link gigabit lan cards pci

- d-link gigabit switch 16 port.

- all computers have cat6 cables

- using frame jumbo 7 k for all of computers.

so will this fit or I need to do something else?

I do have 16 gb ram now.

Does there is a mother board that has two processors?

Yes... Servers. Apple has it's own and if you set up a 12 core (dual processors) Mac Pro, prices would soar above the 5k mark, the same for PCs.

You'll need a good salesperson. This is another world in computing and everything is very expensive. Be prepared.

[FloatingFatMan 18,811]

Yes you are right that I do not know a lot about media and world of encdoing but if I told you my info threee or four months ago you will not believe where I am today.

This is the reason I am posting here to know from other people who know the more then me and step by step I know more and this is what happenning with me my friend.

But if I said that I do not know about this and I should quitm then I will not be able to do anything at all.

I am trying my best to learn.

Thanks a lot :)

Best thing I can recommend, is that you do a LOT of reading. The following site is a pretty good resource, for information AND the tools.

http://www.videohelp.com/

[NoUserName 3]

I do not know mac or apple and only pc with windows.

so i can build a one or a pre-made ones instead?

Best thing I can recommend, is that you do a LOT of reading. The following site is a pretty good resource, for information AND the tools.

http://www.videohelp.com/

Yes exactly videohelp and doom9 are the most informative websites.

But people in neowin.net I used to find more responsive and helpful and informative as well :)

[articuno1au 1,264]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/08/as-mac-pro-stagnates-pc-workstations-muscle-ahead/

Worth a read.

[Luis Mazza 172]

I do not know mac or apple and only pc with windows.

so i can build a one or a pre-made ones instead?

Yes exactly videohelp and doom9 are the most informative websites.

But people in neowin.net I used to find more responsive and helpful and informative as well :)

You should find a good local importer that can find the correct motherboard, case and memory you need and then compare prices.

This is not like setting up a common rig. You'll need very specific components and the salesperson who provides them. You can't just go an ordinary store and ask for something like that.

[+LogicalApex 1,747]

well, I've posted in the forum here before and according to advises I get from members here:

- I bought d-link gigabit lan cards pci

- d-link gigabit switch 16 port.

- all computers have cat6 cables

- using frame jumbo 7 k for all of computers.

so will this fit or I need to do something else?

That should be good. It is all Gigabit level end to end.

No... A full new computer, with dual processor motherboard and TWO new processors.

Everytime you add more processors or cores, you get more speed.

If you take 1 hour to encode in your 4 core rig, add one more processor and you divide the encoding time by two (roughly). You put a 16 core, dual 8 core processor and you divide the encoding time by 4 from the original comparison.

The only two caveats are... price and will you build the rig yourself or buy it ready? Also, get 16GB RAM minimum.

That's all I can help you with. Good luck.

Since I haven't used QuickSync myself and even if I had I'm not a video professional so take my advice with that in mind. That being said, I would recommend he look into QuickSync and what it can bring to the table for him (will it impact quality negatively and if so how much) before jumping to a multiprocessor setup. As from what I've read QuickSync is fast enough to beat a dual proc server level Intel chip at video encoding on something as light as an i7-2500K (remember QuickSync is anywhere from 3x-6x faster than traditional CPU encoding).

It isn't supported in 100% of encoding apps though so that might limit it some as well... I'd recommend research before dropping too much money though.

[articuno1au 1,264]

Based on previous threads of yours NUN, I'd suggest you'd be better off looking at quick sync from a money standpoint.

I think you need to do more reading before you buy stuff >.<

[Luis Mazza 172]

That should be good. It is all Gigabit level end to end.

Since I haven't used QuickSync myself and even if I had I'm not a video professional so take my advice with that in mind. That being said, I would recommend he look into QuickSync and what it can bring to the table for him (will it impact quality negatively and if so how much) before jumping to a multiprocessor setup. As from what I've read QuickSync is fast enough to beat a dual proc server level Intel chip at video encoding on something as light as an i7-2500K (remember QuickSync is anywhere from 3x-6x faster than traditional CPU encoding).

It isn't supported in 100% of encoding apps though so that might limit it some as well... I'd recommend research before dropping too much money though.

Yes, you said it all. It is not really well supported, so this is actually very important as he is doing mission-critical tasks. The media business becomes very expensive if you want support for your demands... Computing power is nothing if you need more than that, like he does: he needs to build a process, a professional process with professional applications, which are poorly supported by Adobe or any other big media software company (regarding QuickSync).

So this may not be an option right now, as he is doing serious business. :)

[Ace 94]

Tech Report recently did a comparison of GPU and CPU-based encoders. Well worth a read.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23324

I am sticking with RipBot264 myself because I want the best quality and can queue the videos up so they are encoded overnight. :)

[mikiem 12]

"Please I'd like to know why encoding videos to .mp4 containers using h.264 codecs takes a lot of time to do the encoding!?"

Most video formats designed for final storage/distribution work by storing occassional key or I frames, which are a complete frame image, then storing partial images in the video frames that fill in the space in between. That means that rather than encode [compress] each frame one at a time or in paralell, for everything but I frames the encoder has to look ahead & do quite a bit of analysis to determine what exactly changes from one frame to the next, & then store [encode] just those changes. Additionally the encoder might make more than one pass so it can analyse the entire video stream & best figure out what portions require the greatest bit rate, meaning less compression... To keep file sizes down it's common to use a Variable Bit Rate [VBR], so simpler scenes with little movement use less bit rate [more compression] than complex &/or action scenes, where more compression leads to artifacts -- with a single pass the encoder can only look so far ahead to determine what scenes warrant higher bit rates, but by doing one or more complete passes 1st the encoder can analyse the entire video.

TO directly answer your question, H.264/AVC does a better job, the final .mp4 file is stored more efficiently, but that reqires more analysis of the original video frames than something like mpg2, & so takes longer. H.264/AVC can also use enhancements so the playing video looks better, but that increases processor use both during encoding & playback. Simply put, on a PC/laptop it takes more processing to encode & play. Graphics processors, chipsets in cameras, chipsets used by capture boxes/cards, the electronics in a cell phone &/or tablet etc. all might be designed/optimized to handle H264/AVC better/faster.

"I used to use WinAVI to do the encoding but the encoded file quality was not good as VidCoder and file size for WinAVI was big and not that small as VidCoder. This is the only reason for my questions, it is mandatory important to have a very fast time for encoding, but even using core i7 2600k with nvidia gtx geforce 550 ti 2 gb with 16 gb ram ddr3 can not make the encoding time fast."

Most apps that do AVC encoding use x264 [which is included in ffmpeg], though many others do use proprietary encoders, such as those by Mainconcept or Sony. X264 itself has variable quality levels, with better equalling slower. In theory if app "X" & app "Y" both use x264, quality should be identical at identical settings, so if everything else was equal any quality difference is normally based on the quality settings whatever app uses -- many, many apps only give you access to a subset of x264 options, so it's impossible to select the full range of quality settings. That said, the efficiency & quality of the code which reads your input video varies, as does any code for re-sizing that video. FWIW right now apps using QT code are generally the fastest. Unless you need Blu-Ray spec AVC, & particularly if you're encoding to standard or smaller frame sizes [not HD], you might find the video converters out of China [e.g. WinX] fastest at somewhere around 2x real-time with your hardware without GPU assist -- be aware however that many [most?] of these converters are frowned upon for not following open source licensing terms.

GPU hardware assist is a difficult topic -- mileage varies considerably. 1) there are few quality comparisons available, & quality does vary depending on the GPU, it's chipset, & the app. 2) some people have great luck while others with identical hardware have loads of problems. 3) many [most?] apps featuring GPU assisted encoding focus on speed rather than quality, so you have little control over encoder settings and quality is often poor. 4) if/when GPU assist does work you can run into other limitations, e.g. your CPU useage might get cut by as much as 1/2 or even 2/3, meaning that there might be little if any benefit to using the GPU -- again mileage varies. There's nothing wrong with trying GPU assist out -- personally I encourage it -- but do realize it's a bit of a trial & error thing that you might have to spend [sometimes quite a bit of] time/effort on testing, & results are not gauranteed.

"That software, Virtu, is the official solution and you can install and use it now. The license is paid for by your motherboard maker so you may or may not be able to use it in a paid fashion. You might also only be able to use d-Mode (Display connected to dedicated GPU) if your machine lacks a monitor port for the Intel HD graphics (i-Mode requires you to be connected to the Integrated GPU directly)."

Virtu uses the GPU built into some Intel CPUs on motherboards with certain Intel chipsets. Usually it's paid for, supplied by the motherboard manufacturer, with its license key in the bios where you also turn hardware support on/off. The central idea behind Virtu is the same as higher end laptops with both built-in & add-on GPUs -- use lower powered graphics most of the time for power savings [& increased battery life]. Virtu also allows you to use the add-on card as primary, but access the Intel GPU for it's GPU assist called Quick Sync. Quick Sync can be incredibly fast, but lacks software that can use it -- my Virtu Control Panel just lists Media Converter 7, Media Converter 7 GUI, & Media Expresso, & the very few encoders I've found that support Quick Sync are all lacking in controls & quality [very much so]. OTOH apps/tools like ffdshow & the LAVFilters do offer Quick Sync support, so even if it's not used for encoding, it may help with decoding/reading your original video so it can be re-encoded. Please note that this is only my experience, so take it with a [large?] grain of salt -- having Virtu on increases my encoding speed in some apps using GPU assisted encoding, even though there doesn't appear to be any Intel GPU activity [per apps/tools like GPU-Z]. Note also that I've seen driver setups for Intel's CPU-based GPU that do not automatically install Intel's OpenCL dirvers for that GPU.

" It looks like people are trying to work on a GPU-accelerated ffmpeg but I don't think it exists yet. "

Ffmpeg has both Nvidea [CUDA] & ATI acceleration options, with AFAIK code optionally being added to some builds for Intel [Quick Sync]. Research I've done in the past suggests CUDA support was 1st & now more bullet proof because that's what the developers had, & because Nvidia was cool about releasing info & code, supporting developers. Do remember though that mileage will vary, so if you have the option to turn GPU assist on/off, try it both ways.

"we are recording the original stream using PCI satalitte cards then do video editing to cut off commercials and un wanted parts then upload two copies one to its associated youtube channel and the other one to the local tv channel server website.

so we do edit the .ts or .mpeg-2 file to do crop and cut then do the encoding ... that is all"

I'd suggest checking out one of the mpg2 cut editing apps, like those from Womble or maybe the free Cuttermaran -- they'll let you eliminate the parts you don't want without re-encoding so no quality loss. Then import the edited mpg2 into one of the Chinese video converters that can do batch processing -- most have very similar quality & speed. The problem with NLEs [non-linear video editors] is that they're set up to edit video, with processing/encoding secondary, so they're universally slower than more specialized apps.

Some people have talked about distributed computing etc., in a nutshell using more than one PC. You can do it yourself, either running the same app on each PC feeding each one different jobs, or you can set it up using one main PC as more-or-less a control center, sending its work to the other PCs, or you can set things up to use Amazon's cloud servers, which if you have the bandwidth available might be the best choice of all. Google something like: "video encoding with amazon cloud".

[mikiem 12]

Tech Report recently did a comparison of GPU and CPU-based encoders. Well worth a read.

Thanks!

Interesting article, though the author got one thing a bit wrong -- ATI & Nvidia have been adding separate chips to some of their cards for video decoding &/or encoding for years -- it started when ATI named their cards HD, back with the HD 2xxx series. For ATI their acceleration stuff was called Avivo, then Stream, finally being abandoned for encoding in favor of OpenCL.

Searching their site the only reference I saw to the VCE the article mentions is a very short blurp in a whitepaper. Is it just renaming the same chip they've used for year, is it a slightly re-worded version, is it something totally new? The drivers are the same, including those used for video encoding/decoding, though interestingly some of those files were left off of the latest, perhaps for win8 compatibility? At any rate do take the article's results with their ATI HD 7750 with Many grains of salt, not because I'm any sort of fan boy, but because 1) ATI's had more than a few driver issues with the 7xxx series, 2) the 12.7 beta driver used had broken video handling, 3) ATI's video encoding/decoding assist has traditionally been iffy with lower end cards than their x870 models, 4) a lot has to do with the encoder used -- I've had both stunning & disgraceful results from different encoders, each using hardware assist from my 6870.

Do note that for means of comparison, the latest Intel chips have a LOT more Quick Sync capabilities/speed than the earlier version(s).

FWIW I've never had good quality results out of any Cyberlink app, at least compared to alternatives, & I'd argue that ArcSoft's MediaConvertor is not exactly a pro level app. Handbrake isn't so much a pro or non-pro app IMO as much as it is a front end for, in this case x264. X264 = x264, wherever you find it, & it's easily among the best, if not the best in the world. If you don't like one front end, use another, or none at all as x264 is a CLI app on its own.

[mikiem 12]

"From my experience, videos like cartoons can be encoded very quickly. Usually about half the length of the video.

Standard color live-action takes a lot longer because of all the shadows and blended colors. (Generally about 1 1/2 times the run length.)

It frequently takes my PC at least twice the length of the movie to compress a black-and-white video."

All depends on your setup & software used. On this modest rig [i7 - no OC] I can transcode 1080 to 720 x 480 [or 360 height etc.] AVC at ~4X real-time using Nero Recode with no GPU assist, including dual pass, re-size, & cropping. Using Vegas Pro 11 to go from 1080 to DVD spec mpg2 the other day it took ~45 minutes for 2 hr. 8 min. worth of video, using ~45-50% GPU. Haven't used it for a while, but A's Video Converter, a tool that uses ATI's hardware acceleration, is incredible for some sizes in some formats -- I've transcoded 2 hr.s of video [720 x 480] to 320 x 240 wmv in <5 min! Last year's Roxio Videowave can be very fast as well, using my ATI GPU, but output options are very limited. When I use x264 I'm primarily concerned with quality, & it takes as long as it takes -- the other apps I use give a good balance of speed & quality. I've got several video converters written by Chinese companies using ffmpeg & QT -- one advantage is they'll import darn near every video I've come across, but encoder options are usually pretty limited, so I've used those for hand-helds, like when my son had his then newly released Droid X... generally I got/get about 2x real-time encoding on both this i7 & the AMD quad I had previously encoding to AVC.

"BTW, 512K video is very poor in quality on any codec available. "

From a high quality source using multiple encoding passes you should be able to get roughly DVD quality at that bit rate using H.264/AVC.

[Luis Mazza 172]

From a high quality source using multiple encoding passes you should be able to get roughly DVD quality at that bit rate using H.264/AVC.

The caveat is that once highly compressed, don't ever try to compress it again. Not recommended, unless the footage is the last priority ever...

[deactivated_ 81]

this is really ssound amazing but what about the time consumed to transfer file between these computers and will it vary if i am using cat5 or cat6 network cables?

network traffic is minimal. It just transfers the chunk it's working on, and not the whole complete source file. I don't think I've seen my network traffic peak above 100 Mbit, so I wouldn't see a gigabit connection on CAT6 make a difference over a 100 Mbit connection on CAT5.

so with RipBot264 I can do crop and choose biterate for audio and video and then make the 8 computers working on the same encoding queue ?

Yes, crop, resize, color enhance, choose different encoding profiles, all that. And even queue up multiple files to encode one after the other. And then yes, then up to 8 computers will all crunch away at encoding the same queue. It's brilliant, I tell ya. =)

I prefer to not have to go get my blu-ray discs off the shelf, so will rip my blu-rays and encode with this software. It lets easily choose which audio tracks I want, if I want to re-encode the audio or leave as is, choose the subtitles I need, or even choose to build the subtitles into the video (useful for forced subtitles). And I have 4 computers, so this does a full 1080p high quality encode (I honestly can't tell the difference between the encoded and source blu-ray on my 46" LCD TV) for a two hour long movie in about 40-50 minutes, whereas it was about 4 hours on just a single computer.

[NoUserName 3]

That should be good. It is all Gigabit level end to end.

Since I haven't used QuickSync myself and even if I had I'm not a video professional so take my advice with that in mind. That being said, I would recommend he look into QuickSync and what it can bring to the table for him (will it impact quality negatively and if so how much) before jumping to a multiprocessor setup. As from what I've read QuickSync is fast enough to beat a dual proc server level Intel chip at video encoding on something as light as an i7-2500K (remember QuickSync is anywhere from 3x-6x faster than traditional CPU encoding).

It isn't supported in 100% of encoding apps though so that might limit it some as well... I'd recommend research before dropping too much money though.

I will check this QuickSynch and feed you back as I never read or know about it ever before.

You should find a good local importer that can find the correct motherboard, case and memory you need and then compare prices.

This is not like setting up a common rig. You'll need very specific components and the salesperson who provides them. You can't just go an ordinary store and ask for something like that.

Here in Egypt you can not find a good technical sales person but your only best option is to search over the internet first then search local market for what you want.

http://arstechnica.c...s-muscle-ahead/

Worth a read.

Yes it is indeed and I think I might read it twice to make sure I fully understand it correctly as terms are a bit too much and complicated to me.

Based on previous threads of yours NUN, I'd suggest you'd be better off looking at quick sync from a money standpoint.

I think you need to do more reading before you buy stuff >.<

Thanks a lot for following and reading my threads and I hope that I am not an annoying member around the forum. You mean to stay away from Quick Synh?

Yes, you said it all. It is not really well supported, so this is actually very important as he is doing mission-critical tasks. The media business becomes very expensive if you want support for your demands... Computing power is nothing if you need more than that, like he does: he needs to build a process, a professional process with professional applications, which are poorly supported by Adobe or any other big media software company (regarding QuickSync).

So this may not be an option right now, as he is doing serious business. :)

Actually I've borrowed a copy of Premiere Pro from a friend and cut of the internet connection and activated it using his serial and tried its presets and it is really very much disappointed as it is encoding 1 hour video file in about 15 minutes to it is .h264 with 480x270 using the lowest bit rate by premiere, so the adobe premiere will not work for me either and I ended up removing it from my computer and reinstalling my windows "this is the reason for my late reply now".

Tech Report recently did a comparison of GPU and CPU-based encoders. Well worth a read.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23324

I am sticking with RipBot264 myself because I want the best quality and can queue the videos up so they are encoded overnight. :)

When I checked the price of the 8 processors extreme i7 3xxx k honestly this is beyond my budget now as it will about 10k usd and I do not have such a budget for the time being.

network traffic is minimal. It just transfers the chunk it's working on, and not the whole complete source file. I don't think I've seen my network traffic peak above 100 Mbit, so I wouldn't see a gigabit connection on CAT6 make a difference over a 100 Mbit connection on CAT5.

Yes, crop, resize, color enhance, choose different encoding profiles, all that. And even queue up multiple files to encode one after the other. And then yes, then up to 8 computers will all crunch away at encoding the same queue. It's brilliant, I tell ya. =)

I prefer to not have to go get my blu-ray discs off the shelf, so will rip my blu-rays and encode with this software. It lets easily choose which audio tracks I want, if I want to re-encode the audio or leave as is, choose the subtitles I need, or even choose to build the subtitles into the video (useful for forced subtitles). And I have 4 computers, so this does a full 1080p high quality encode (I honestly can't tell the difference between the encoded and source blu-ray on my 46" LCD TV) for a two hour long movie in about 40-50 minutes, whereas it was about 4 hours on just a single computer.

Will it through GUI or it is depending on AVISynth commands?

The caveat is that once highly compressed, don't ever try to compress it again. Not recommended, unless the footage is the last priority ever...

I did not understand quite any single word of this comment .. lol , I am sorry but it is my poor knowledge so I would be too much appreciatd for you if you make it more simple.

All depends on your setup & software used. On this modest rig [i7 - no OC] I can transcode 1080 to 720 x 480 [or 360 height etc.] AVC at ~4X real-time using Nero Recode with no GPU assist, including dual pass, re-size, & cropping. Using Vegas Pro 11 to go from 1080 to DVD spec mpg2 the other day it took ~45 minutes for 2 hr. 8 min. worth of video, using ~45-50% GPU. Haven't used it for a while, but A's Video Converter, a tool that uses ATI's hardware acceleration, is incredible for some sizes in some formats -- I've transcoded 2 hr.s of video [720 x 480] to 320 x 240 wmv in <5 min! Last year's Roxio Videowave can be very fast as well, using my ATI GPU, but output options are very limited. When I use x264 I'm primarily concerned with quality, & it takes as long as it takes -- the other apps I use give a good balance of speed & quality. I've got several video converters written by Chinese companies using ffmpeg & QT -- one advantage is they'll import darn near every video I've come across, but encoder options are usually pretty limited, so I've used those for hand-helds, like when my son had his then newly released Droid X... generally I got/get about 2x real-time encoding on both this i7 & the AMD quad I had previously encoding to AVC.

From a high quality source using multiple encoding passes you should be able to get roughly DVD quality at that bit rate using H.264/AVC.

Please does the over clicking will help me at all?

I did not tried vegas but I think it will not be a lot of differences between Premiere and Vegas.

Thanks!

Interesting article, though the author got one thing a bit wrong -- ATI & Nvidia have been adding separate chips to some of their cards for video decoding &/or encoding for years -- it started when ATI named their cards HD, back with the HD 2xxx series. For ATI their acceleration stuff was called Avivo, then Stream, finally being abandoned for encoding in favor of OpenCL.

Searching their site the only reference I saw to the VCE the article mentions is a very short blurp in a whitepaper. Is it just renaming the same chip they've used for year, is it a slightly re-worded version, is it something totally new? The drivers are the same, including those used for video encoding/decoding, though interestingly some of those files were left off of the latest, perhaps for win8 compatibility? At any rate do take the article's results with their ATI HD 7750 with Many grains of salt, not because I'm any sort of fan boy, but because 1) ATI's had more than a few driver issues with the 7xxx series, 2) the 12.7 beta driver used had broken video handling, 3) ATI's video encoding/decoding assist has traditionally been iffy with lower end cards than their x870 models, 4) a lot has to do with the encoder used -- I've had both stunning & disgraceful results from different encoders, each using hardware assist from my 6870.

Do note that for means of comparison, the latest Intel chips have a LOT more Quick Sync capabilities/speed than the earlier version(s).

FWIW I've never had good quality results out of any Cyberlink app, at least compared to alternatives, & I'd argue that ArcSoft's MediaConvertor is not exactly a pro level app. Handbrake isn't so much a pro or non-pro app IMO as much as it is a front end for, in this case x264. X264 = x264, wherever you find it, & it's easily among the best, if not the best in the world. If you don't like one front end, use another, or none at all as x264 is a CLI app on its own.

Please regarding adding two processors to a motherboard will it gonna make a different for real as no one here in my local areas know baout it even sales.

Thanks a million for every one read and reply to my posts and I hope to really end up with a solution.