Is it normal?

[Kinger124]

to take approx 7 hours to convert a video (AVI) using these settings?
http://www.redkawa.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1&d=1166467775

Im looking for the Best Quality i can get.

also another slight problem im having is while converting I CANT touch the computer at all since it runs slower then a snail... MUCH slower ( I click on a window to open it and it takes about 12 or so mins to finally open up )

[Chouonsoku]

If you have a slow computer than that might be a normal encode time for you, can't say anything more detailed until I know your system specs. Same thing goes with using your computer while encoding. Encoding video takes up a lot of system resources, so having a slow computer will make it crawl if you're encoding video.

[XerXes]

Even on my quad core processor things will get slow when converting a file. Its best to convert at night when your asleep or at school or work. One thing I noticed with your settings though is you have the bitrate at 2560. Thats a bit too much in my opinion. Anything over 1024 and you would have to be sitting 5 inches from the TV to notice any difference going higher. Mine is set a 768 and works wonderfull.

[cozdiver]

What size tv are you using? I assumed on bigger TVs a higher bitrate would equate to a better picture. Regular DVDs output several thousand bitrates and Blu-ray by comparison outputs tens of thousands in bitrate.

My TV is 55 inch. Most of my source files ( AVIs) are already 2.1 MB bitrates so I've been at least matching that or, in some cases increasing it when converting. Am I wrong to stay with bitrates higher than 768 and why?

[acidraven]

Bit rate of DVD's is 2mbit/sec Mpeg2. Mepg2 is a really old video format when processors where slow. The more work you do on compression and decompression can give you the same file quality at a lower file size. The main point of using AVC is that it is the newest, most compressed format with the least loss so you can use lower bittrates and have smaller files.

Wrong is all on point of view. it is possible to view uncompressed video streams on a computer. but then you are dealing with Multi gig files for a few min. If you have the space for it why would you change things. People who do Pro video editing Have TeraBytes in there work computer only do work on it and maybe only 2 projects at once because they use that much space and burn a stack of dvd's for archive before they start doing anything.

what any one realy needs to do is experiment with the bit rates. Try going really low bittrates and use a 1-5 min clip. Now don't do a bunch of them and watch them all in order or you will be able to tell the difference sense you have a fresh frame of reference. But increase that bittrate till you don't notice that you have changed it, an other question is if you can deal with it being lower quality to have access to more in the space. I can guess that someone can tell that a video is encoded at 768 vs 1024 if they have really good eyes and know what to look for. while someone else you could show them something a bit lower then 768 and they won't notice.

I wish I had some of the pictures that I have seen that graphs compression to quality. But there is a point where diffrent bittrates make a big difference while there are other points at the hi and low end of the bittrates that there is little difference. You might also want to use the VBR setup and use the quantizer numbers instead.

[XerXes]

Another thing to consider is resolution. The higher the resolution the more pixel matter you will notice at the lower bit rates. I have a standard def tv, so 720 X 480 and 768 is perfect. Now if I went to an HD TV I would bump the res up and probably bump up the bit rate.