Originally posted by LarryM04
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Problem with 2012
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
The BD-50 to BD-25 ended up taking over 18 hours.
I don't understand why its sooo much worse than a DVD ???
This disk was 33G, if for round numbers I say that a DVD9 is 9G, then 33/9 = 3.7 I would guess that this disk would take 3.7 times as long to compress than a DVD9. Yet a DVD9 compresses in a few minutes not +18 hours.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of DVDFab, I'm baffled by this huge time difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Complication View PostYou'd have to compare the uncompressed video information to get an idea of where the difference is. Here is a handy chart:
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Co...o_Bitrates.htm
I would be fine with the task taking 4x as long, even 8x as long. But 18hrs is about a 40x time difference. That just seems out-of-whack.
Is everyone seeing that kind of time?
Comment
-
Originally posted by LarryM04 View PostIs everyone seeing that kind of time?
To put it simple, the video codecs are much more complex than dvd.
DVD has had plenty of time to prefect its compression scheme and PC's have come a long way since its beginning with better processors etc ...where as bluray .m2ts is basically just beginning. Quad core processor will do a way faster job compared to a pentium 4. But until quad core and beyond become standard, it will take a little longer than you might like.
You can't look at dvd ~5GB vs bluray ~30GB and say its X proportionate so the compression times should be X proportionate. Only in a perfect world!Last edited by crackinhedz; 05-18-2010, 11:59 PM.
Comment
Comment