Sign In

Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 MKV IS OUT NOW — Page 198

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It's going to take 2 or 3 days with the faster settings ;-) With the slower settings, which lead to only a slightly better preservation of fine detail, the encoding time would nearly double. However you have to keep in mind that Harmy is using a Core2Duo Mobile to encode, which is pretty slow compared to newer generations of CPUs.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

If slower settings lead to only a very slight increase in fine detail, I'd still say it's worth the extra wait.

Of course, I have no idea what specifically you're referring to. But just sayin' that this is an important project since this is likely the closest we're going to get to a true HD remaster of the original for a long long time. So any little bit extra that can be squeezed out of it is worth it in my book :)

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Couldn't have said it better myself!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

Author
Time

Bobocop said:

 

If slower settings lead to only a very slight increase in fine detail, I'd still say it's worth the extra wait.

Of course, I have no idea what specifically you're referring to. But just sayin' that this is an important project since this is likely the closest we're going to get to a true HD remaster of the original for a long long time. So any little bit extra that can be squeezed out of it is worth it in my book :)

 

+1!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'm definitely using the faster settings. Check these out, they are comparisons between test encodes and the lossless source file:

Slow Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138305

Fast Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138306

Slow Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138307

Fast Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138308

Slow Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138309

Fast Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138311

 

Slow Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138314

Fast Settings: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/138316

And the speed is almost double, meaning it would probably take 4-5 days on my computer with the slower settings.

 

 

 

 

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

Yeah, I don't see any meaningful difference there.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

On my 15 inches monitor, I see no difference at all. But this is my computer monitor.

How on my 45 inches TV monitor, there might be a difference.

Author
Time

looking for HDTV of the  Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.  Also HDTV of The Lord of the Rings trilogy

Author
Time

looking for HDTV of the  Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.  Also HDTV of The Lord of the Rings trilogy

Author
Time

Anyone interested in loaning Harmy an i5 or i7 box? Anyone local? It's a bit late at this point but better late than never. I'd loan if I had one, unfortunately I'm stuck with the same Core2Duo mobile (P8400). 

Author
Time

You can spot a minor difference between the comparison shots when switching back and forth between them. It's mainly in the grain pattern. But you won't notice any of that during playback anyway.

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

Yeah, I don't see any meaningful difference there.

Yep, me too!

He’s no good to me dead

Author
Time

No difference here on a 27" HD monitor. I think the faster settings are fine.

Author
Time

If you are giving your source the bitrate that it needs, then you won't notice much difference with the slower settings.  Their impact is significant when you are trying to compress a video to make the resulting file-size really small, but not as significant otherwise.  I would advise you to try x264's default settings, but make sure me=umh.  In the unlikely even that you are unhappy with the quality, try increasing subme to 8 or 9.

Author
Time

Well, the settings for the Bluray are done. me=umh is for the faster settings and me=esa for the slower settings, while subme is set to 10 is for both.

I'll work on the AVCHD settings later.

Author
Time

Now we wait

"Let's face it, the Ewoks sucked, dude" -Hurley, Lost 5x13-Some like it Hoth.

Please bear with me if I tend to get too excited about anything or say too much, I have issues.

Author
Time

Jan said:Well, the settings for the Bluray are done. me=umh is for the faster settings and me=esa for the slower settings, while subme is set to 10 is for both.

Oh, I see.  I thought you guys were talking about x264's presets, but it seems you have derived your own "faster" and "slower" settings.  Yes; me=esa is a waste of time.

Author
Time

I didn't ever think I would say that, but I cannot see a difference on the screenshots from the fast vs. slow encodings Harmy posted.

Author
Time

It's going pretty smoothly so far. You can't trust those estimated remaining times though, I've seen them change by several hours in either direction in a matter of a few minutes. Here for example, it said there were 29 hours left and hour ago, so we'll see :-)

 

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

So it's steadily slowing down, the ETA is already 32 hours and the encoding speed dropped to 1.30fps. I don't know why this always happens with all of my encodes. The encoding of one reel in Premiere usually started on ETA of about 2hrs and then it ended up taking 8 or sometimes 7 or sometimes 12. But then once I had an 18 minutes reel render in 45 minutes right after a two minute video from the same project, with the same settings in the same queue took 5hrs. I really don't understand this shit.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

We waited so long, there is no reason why we couldn't wait longer :-)

Take all the time you need

Author
Time

To be honest, this is not as much about you waiting, as it is about me having my computer bogged down by encoding and unable to do anything else properly for so long. I mean, I wouldn't mind if I knew it was unavoidable but if it can encode that fast at first and then it slows down gradually, and if the same video with the same settings can take anywhere between 12hrs and 45minutes, it seems like there's something wrong somewhere.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

Nice to see the encode is running :-) I sometimes get greatly differing encoding time for the same video as well and I don't know why either. It slowing down gradually is pretty normal too. The second pass of my test encode ran at 1FPS average while the first was almost exactly as fast as on your end.

If you want to work with your computer while it encodes just use the task manager and change the priority of x264.exe to either "Lower than normal" or "Low". I advise against doing CPU heavy stuff, but for the rest it should be ok.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

To be honest, this is not as much about you waiting, as it is about me having my computer bogged down by encoding and unable to do anything else properly for so long. I mean, I wouldn't mind if I knew it was unavoidable but if it can encode that fast at first and then it slows down gradually, and if the same video with the same settings can take anywhere between 12hrs and 45minutes, it seems like there's something wrong somewhere.

Not sure what kind of a processor do you own but in the case that you have a multi-core processor and the encoder allows it you can always play with the affinity settings and let the main core do something else than encoding :-)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I made encodings with g-force's script to stabilize the GOUT a few years ago.

One movie took about one week to encode. The encoding time was estimated for 2 weeks, but it took one week finally.

For ANH I started the encoder, travelled for vacation to spain and when I was back at home I had the first movie encoded!