Single Pass vs Multi Pass?

The advantage of single pass encoding is speed. All things equal, single pass will take about 1/2 the time as multiple-pass.

Multi-pass uses the first pass to analyze the video and make decisions about how to allocate the budgeted bits according to the needs of the various scenes in the video. More complex content would get more bit and less complex would get less.

Often, it's not worth the extra time. For example, an interview with two talking heads and with fairly simple B roll, might look just as good to the viewer were it encoded single pass.

Russ

Do a test. Choose a section of your movie that is relatively challenging. Select it in the preview window by marking in and out points. Do the encodes with both settings and compare.

Good luck with the project.

Russ

There really isn't a difference in video quality between one and two-pass encoding.

The advantage to using two-pass is that it manages the bit rate better and can save a little in file size.

One- with talking heads or stills will save a lot in file size. For example, Photos... you have the bit rate set to 19,000 Mbit/s... with that setting you will get a video at about a third the bit rate compared to two-pass. No talking heads the video bit rate will be around around 19,000 Mbit/s.

(I've been using one-pass for years. Word on the internet is that one-pass has better quality campeared to two-pass.)

I don't think you can only segment with one-pass. One thing to read about is using 'compression makers' in Compressor.

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/compression_chapter_markers_stone.html

The above link is using FCP 7, but you can do this in compressor too... (This only works when encoding to MPEG-2.)

After adding a marker, in the right panel select type... compression marker.

Doing this can make your DVD look better.

You can put it anywhere. Most like at the beginning of a transition.

WilliamL wrote:

I have found that 2 pass VBR takes twice a slong and creates a file about 1.5 times as large.

The encoding time part of your findings are what one would expect. But I can't come up with a reason why you would get any significant size difference whatsover – much less 50%.

Notwithstanding, it' agood to hear that you got a satisfactory result.

Russ