Duration so high

Question

Duration so high

Nearby daily I let render movies by iDVD and almost it takes the time of the movie-length or less.

Now, there is a movie take is reported to use 19 hours - 9x the length.

Quicktime-Info of the movie:

Apple Intermediate Codec, 960 × 540, 16,7 Mill.

16 Bit Integer (Big Endian), Stereo, 44,100 kHz

mpeg streamclip info:

Dauer: 2:00:38

Datenmenge: 17.73 GB

Bit Rate: 21.04 Mbps

Video Spuren:

Apple Intermediate Codec, 960 × 540, 25 fps, 19.63 Mbps

Audio Spuren:

16-Bit Little Endian stereo, 44.1 kHz, 1.41 Mbps

Stream Dateien:

hänsel und gretel.mov (17.73 GB)

What can establish the difference?

~Karl

Posted on Jan 8, 2016 3:04 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Jan 12, 2016 12:50 PM in response to KarlPfeifferHarbachoed

Do you always use the same settings?

There is

- best performance (beste Leistung) = if you have max 1h movie content and want to be ready a bit faster

- best quality (beste Qualität) = in between

- professional quality (professionelle Qualität) = if you have 2h content max. Takes longer to encode, because it has to "look" more detailed on the content.

Maybe your 2h movie is very complex and that takes longer to encode?

Reply

Answer 2

Jan 12, 2016 1:49 PM in response to lime-iMacG3

lime, the problem from the one day is away, and I am not sure whiether it is opportun to write about a story which is gone… This one night after it worked four hours it said at morning now to have 18 hours still… I could not imagine that that is true, canceled and restarted - again, 18hours. Then I asked here in the discussion group. In meantime the estimation of remaining time dropped in short time to 6, 4, 3 hours and was ended in a reasonable time.

However. The greatest sorrow in such a case is to me to not know why …

Normally I take the option of the longest work, best quality and my estimation of normal duration is based on this.

Sometimes I have movies with very large frames 1280x720 and larger, 1920x1080, this costs naturally time,

and I am wondering, whether it brings better quality to SD DVDs. Do you know?

~Karl

Reply

Answer 3

Jan 13, 2016 9:50 AM in response to KarlPfeifferHarbachoed

Well, probably there was a part at the beginning which was harder to estimate the time needed to finish and when it came over that point it saw that it got faster. Also, the "professional quality" setting does 2 passes, so the first pass would be to look for the content and after that is done it knows better what bitrates etc. it has to use and so the estimation for the time is done more precisely after the first pass. I guess.

Also, if you jsut copy files or folders from your Hard Drive to another Hard Drive OS X always measures the time accordingly to the transfer rate. Now, if you have a Hard Drive that has parts that can be written to faster, the transfer rate will be faster too and so will the time needed be shown shorter. Then when you reach another area of the Hard Drive that only can be reached slower, the time for completion of the copy process will also change in real time. Maybe that adds to the problem too. Like when you 17GB are scattered over your drive (and not written as one consecutive block) and/or your drive is already very full.

To the frames (you mean aspect ratio). It depends on the quality of the source. If 1920x1080 is your aspect ratio, but the file is of poor quality I would not expect it to get better with a smaller aspect ratio. However I was told, that one can get smaller files with better quality, if one chooses a smaller apsect ratio. The result will of course look only good in that ratio and not, if you then blow it up to a big aspect ratio again. I would think, because the TV would have to intrapolate the higher aspect ratio from less source content (i.e. add pixels). But wait for the experts. I am not 100% sure.

Reply