Steve M. Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ran across a new FREE H.265 transcoder created by an NX1 user. I would not have believed this if I didn't try it myself. Here's the scoop; a one minute UHD - 4K, 23.98 file, converted to ProRes 422 LT., this on a 2009 iMAC, 2.8GHz- i7, 16 GB RAM. Transcode time; 3 minutes - 51 seconds @2.71GB output file. I don't know about your experience with this file, but that is 3-1/2 times faster than iFFMPEG. The file looks clean to my eye, as clean as anything from any other transcoder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 4, 2015 Administrators Share Posted February 4, 2015 Kind of a vital piece of info missing from your post Steve. What's the app!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Kind of a vital piece of info missing from your post Steve. What's the app!?Damn, I guess in all my enthusiasm, I did forget that link, sorry about that!http://sourceforge.net/p/rockymountainsmovieconverter/wiki/Home/Andrew, let me know what you think about this application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupp Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Thanks for the link, but this converter is just another front-end for ffmpeg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 4, 2015 Administrators Share Posted February 4, 2015 So in theory it should be the same speed as IFFMPEG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Thanks for the link, but this converter is just another front-end for ffmpeg.Okay, then explain why it's significantly faster than iffmpeg on my MAC? Image quality? I can't see a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 So in theory it should be the same speed as IFFMPEG.Meaning, you've tested it and are getting faster speeds? Put it this way, every person that has this, posts the same comments, it's way faster than any other transcoder at present, and I can confirm that on my end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupp Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 So in theory it should be the same speed as IFFMPEG.This front-end probably uses different settings than the IFFMPEG front-end, so the speed wouldn't be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupp Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Okay, then explain why it's significantly faster than iffmpeg on my MAC? Image quality? I can't see a difference.The "app" that you linked uses different settings than IFFMPEG. Both of those "apps" are front-ends for ffmpeg. If you just used identical ffmpeg settings on the command line, you would get the same (or faster) speed with less cpu/memory overhead, and you would have more flexibility to change settings. With such front-ends is that the choice of settings is often limited by the author of the "app." By the way, one of the more popular "front-ends" for some of the ffmpeg encoding libraries is the open-sourced handbrake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 4, 2015 Administrators Share Posted February 4, 2015 What kind of settings might be different? Quality differences - single pass encoding rather than 2 pass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupp Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Don't know which settings differ. Someone would have to look at the code. I would guess that the front-end introduced in this thread does not do multiple passes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Okay, I'll buy into that, makes sense. So, basically this guy has figured out a series of settings that make for a faster transcode, which you could duplicate within Iffmpeg IF you knew that particular code? Good luck, getting that from iffmpeg, they are extremely vague in there replies to the use of their product, which isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. Bottom-line, even if it is a front end to iffmpeg........it's free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Concerning multiple passes, you're probably right about that and for good reason, a 3-4 minute NX1 H.265 clip transcoded in iffmpeg, you could practically grow a beard before that would be complete! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transmission Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Has anyone else tried this? I just downloaded it and can't seem to change the language from chinese (?) to english.Edit: Downloaded the wrong file... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalEd Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 What are your output settings. If you output to the setting they say to use ( If source is 4K H.265 (30P) --> Select 1920x1080 option.) at 1920x1080 it is faster but then you are not editing with full 4k files. I did that for many of my first videos but when changing it to quality (same as Source) it takes a lot longer and creates files 10 times larger.But if you are not going to do any zooming in when editing the 1920x1080 option looks the same as long as you are editing to export to HD 1920x1080 so you are changing it to 1920x1080 to start with so it will edit more easy and have smaller file size. It still keeps the great quality of the 4K files just down to 1920x1080 to edit with and use.The only thing you mess is if you want to do a digital edit zoom in the file is all ready at 100% VS the larger files that you can then zoom in on a lot. So if you are not going to zoom in when editing then i see no reason to convert to the larger files when you are going to export to HD in the end.But even if you do zoom in on the converted 4k to 1920x1080 option file it still has so much info in it doing a edit zoom still looks ok.Here is what it looks like this is the full 4k file size zoomed inhttps://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10498206_10202918002225505_7786317454219528511_o.jpgHere is the the same file zoomed into 200% but from a converted file to 1920x1080 you can see a little loss but with a moving video it is super hard to see any difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupp Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 So, basically this guy has figured out a series of settings that make for a faster transcode, which you could duplicate within Iffmpeg IF you knew that particular code?Well, it might be possible to get the same/similar settings with the choices offered by IFFMPEG, but I don't really know much about that "app" nor about the ffmpeg front-end which you linked. Of course, I am talking about trying to duplicate/approximate settings -- not change the "code" of any "app." Good luck, getting that from iffmpeg, they are extremely vague in there replies to the use of their product, which isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. Bottom-line, even if it is a front end to iffmpeg........it's free!Not sure if I made the scenario clear. We have three (3) "apps" in question here:1. The "RockyMountains transcoder" (which you linked).2. "IFFMPEG."3. The venerable, robust, command-line decoder/encoder, "ffmpeg." Both RockyMountains and IFFMPEG are front-ends for ffmpeg. There are lots of front ends for ffmpeg. Ffmpeg is open-source and free. If you know the ffmpeg settings that are used in RockyMountains, you can merely use them on the command line to get the same (or faster) results. Better yet, you can include those settings into a simple batch script and use it on a separate bare-bones render box, while you do the "creative" work on your GUI machine. I doubt that there is anything particularly remarkable about the ffmpeg settings used in RockyMountains. A web search could probably find settings for similarly transcoding h265 with ffmpeg. However, with IFFMPEG, you probably won't be able to use the exact same settings as those employed by RockyMountains, because such front-ends often limit the choices that are allowed (and ffmpeg gives a zillion choices). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted February 5, 2015 Author Share Posted February 5, 2015 What are your output settings. If you output to the setting they say to use ( If source is 4K H.265 (30P) --> Select 1920x1080 option.) at 1920x1080 it is faster but then you are not editing with full 4k files. I did that for many of my first videos but when changing it to quality (same as Source) it takes a lot longer and creates files 10 times larger.But if you are not going to do any zooming in when editing the 1920x1080 option looks the same as long as you are editing to export to HD 1920x1080 so you are changing it to 1920x1080 to start with so it will edit more easy and have smaller file size. It still keeps the great quality of the 4K files just down to 1920x1080 to edit with and use.The only thing you mess is if you want to do a digital edit zoom in the file is all ready at 100% VS the larger files that you can then zoom in on a lot. So if you are not going to zoom in when editing then i see no reason to convert to the larger files when you are going to export to HD in the end.But even if you do zoom in on the converted 4k to 1920x1080 option file it still has so much info in it doing a edit zoom still looks ok.Here is what it looks like this is the full 4k file size zoomed inhttps://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10498206_10202918002225505_7786317454219528511_o.jpgHere is the the same file zoomed into 200% but from a converted file to 1920x1080 you can see a little loss but with a moving video it is super hard to see any difference.I did try that option and when I compared the 1080P & ProRes LT (same as source) 4K image, sized the same in QT7, to my eye the 4K sized down was sharper. So, the real test is transcoding to 1080P then seeing, is it the same as doing a 4K to 2K timeline edit, as far as resolution output. Yes, of course you lose the re-frame capability with 1080P, but save a lot of transcoding time, if you do not care about a 4K master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Ran across a new FREE H.265 transcoder created by an NX1 user. I would not have believed this if I didn't try it myself. Here's the scoop; a one minute UHD - 4K, 23.98 file, converted to ProRes 422 LT., this on a 2009 iMAC, 2.8GHz- i7, 16 GB RAM. Transcode time; 3 minutes - 51 seconds @2.71GB output file. I don't know about your experience with this file, but that is 3-1/2 times faster than iFFMPEG. The file looks clean to my eye, as clean as anything from any other transcoder. The latest iFFmpeg 5.4 version has about the fastest ProRes encoding. A movie that previously took 60minutes, now encodes is less then 10 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve M. Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Nice to know, thanks! I would bet it's probably nothing more than iffmpeg using Rocky Mountain Movie Converters settings. Although I could be wrong, and often am! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neosushi Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 So I ran a few tests to compare Rocky vs iFFMPEG (latest update).I converted à 30s long video shot with my NX1 (PRO 4K) - Converted in PRORES Standard Quality (SQ) and High Quality (HQ)Here are my results:Original File Size: 273MB Duration: 30"50Standard Quality conversion : Rocky Mountain: 2min03s / File Size: 2,56GBiFFMPEG: 1min28 / File Size: 2,52GBHigh Quality conversion:Rocky Mountain: 2min10s / File Size: 3,87GBiFFMPEG: 1min34s / File Size: 3,77GBSo for now I'm going back to using iFFMPEG - also the GUI is much easier to use - although output folders are still not practical in neither one of these apps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.