title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

  1. #16
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    37,560

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    It would be inefficient to only to do 1 encode at a time.

  2. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Just tried the demo, love the OS integration and speed. Was wondering if there were any plans for an image sequence (DPX, TIF, TGA, JPG, etc) conversion option?

  3. #18
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    37,560

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    It would be hard to implement it into the style of operation that dBpoweramp expects (normally 1 file in, 1 file out), here you have multiple files in and one out.

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    35

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Any plans to include HDR to SDR conversion, something like this?https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=174415

  5. #20
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    37,560

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Will look into it.

  6. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    35

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Glad to see the converter simply encodes as anamorphic instead of changing height vs. width. I'm encoding my PLEX movie library for minimum potential streaming quality at 448x240, mono audio using the DynAudioNorm setting.

    Quick suggestion: in the batch converter you can filter by video type, but I don't see any way to exclude files that have a specific string of characters in the name. For example, all the movie trailers are stored in the same folder as the movie, so I want to filter out all files that contain "-trailer" in them.

    It may be useful to be able to filter out files smaller than X size, and/or filter by video resolution.


    To maximize theoretical quality, at least for x264, it might be good to have a setting to only use 1 core per encode.

    For downsizing video, for example you can see a pretty significant difference at small resolutions between bilinear/bicubic and spline16. Spline16 keep a lot more fine detail without negatively impacting upscaling (no haloes or over sharpening like Lanczos). It might be cool to also implement an option for content-adaptive downsizing as well, something like this: http://johanneskopf.de/publications/downscaling/

  7. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    35

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Ahh, I just saw the CPU-Force option, so I can use 1 core and 16 simultaneous encodes. Any way we can expand that to 40 simultaneous encodes? That way I could use all 20 cores and 40 threads on the workstation. Currently, using 1 core per encode and 16 simultaneous encodes are only utilizing 41% of my CPU :D

    I did try editing the DSP file, but no luck, it just ignores the added option.
    Last edited by Lynx_TWO; 08-01-2018 at 11:11 PM. Reason: did try editing the DSP file

  8. #23
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    37,560

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Each encoder uses 4 cpu cores (encoder specific), so 16 encoders should be 64 cores.


    If you are getting 41% CPU utilized, then it is likely your I/O (ssd drive) is the bottle neck, not CPU.

  9. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    35

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoon View Post
    Each encoder uses 4 cpu cores (encoder specific), so 16 encoders should be 64 cores.


    If you are getting 41% CPU utilized, then it is likely your I/O (ssd drive) is the bottle neck, not CPU.
    I'm using the CPU Force option to only use 1 core per encoder instead of 4. Hard drive usage is at between 1%-5% so that shouldn't be an issue... I'm encoding H264 at the slowest setting, so it's *only* getting 105 fps using 16 simultaneous encodes, forced to one core per CPU. Now, if I use two cores per encoder it jumps to 82%, and around 210 fps, since it's using 32 threads of the 40 total threads at that point, but to maintain absolute best theoretical quality for H264, one core should be used per encode, yes?

    I guess my point is, if you have a lot of cores, there's really no reason not to encode at the best theoretical quality possible given h264 and the CRF value, using one core per encoder. Now, h265 I could see given it's much better at distributing workload, but from the documentation it appears even that encoder can theoretically benefits from using only one core per encode, and the only downside is time. Of course, I could also be totally wrong :D


    I guess the thing to do would be to test output file size differences given the same CRF value and other settings with one core vs four per encode. I will have to do this and report back... Hey... having a script to auto-test different settings in dBpoweramp might be a niche, but really useful feature as well!

  10. #25
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    37,560

    Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    > one core should be used per encode, yes?

    No, the codec is designed to run at 4 normally. Quality is the same no matter how many cores are used. Certain h264 or h265 encoders might be better on one core, but not this one.

  11. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    35

    Thumbs up Re: Welcome to dBpoweramp Video Converter

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoon View Post
    > one core should be used per encode, yes?

    No, the codec is designed to run at 4 normally. Quality is the same no matter how many cores are used. Certain h264 or h265 encoders might be better on one core, but not this one.
    Ahh, cool! It'll be a bit before I have 64 usable threads :D

    Right now this chip - Intel Xeon E5-2698 v4 - 2.2 GHz - 20-Core - 40 Threads - 50 MB Cache is $3,400 each. No thanks!

    If only I could find a couple engineering samples for ~$200 each Right now they are on eBay for closer to $800 each.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •