Other Ripping from disc to file FPS

[Chameleon]

I would like some kind person to tell me what FPS you are getting ripping from a disc to file. H264 or H265.

[Nik_Simpson]

Here's mine

I typically see around 70-100 FPS ripping Bluray to MKV x264. My setting are typically:
1. Bitrate ~9500 for 16x9 content
2. Preserve HD audio

The FPS numbers are consistent across several machines (all 4th gen Core i7) using Intel QuickSync.

[Chameleon]

I typically see around 70-100 FPS ripping Bluray to MKV x264. My setting are typically:
1. Bitrate ~9500 for 16x9 content
2. Preserve HD audio

The FPS numbers are consistent across several machines (all 4th gen Core i7) using Intel QuickSync.

Thank you, I am using Cuda and I am getting between 75 and 125FPS, I am using a new 1080GTX and I might be mistaken but they were much faster with previous versions. Thank you again.

[3dman]

I have the GTX1060 from disk to MKV Fab can start slow at 68FPS then go to about 122FPS but then it slows at the end so really total conversion time should be the real indicator to how fast it is so I will give 2 examples.

Finding dory 3d 96 mins. run time converted from disk to MKV 3D in 20 mins.

The newest Starwars movie 3d 136 mins. run time converted from disk to 3dmkv in 30 mins.

Your in the correct ballpark for FPS using Cuda. I Used a I-7 64 bit windows 10 with Fab version 10 latest version LG blu ray drive.

Converting from Iso on harddrive to MKV 3d about 15 mins for 3d disk regular blu rays are even faster.

[90312]

According to the change log in 10.0.0.6 a new converter engine was introduced and it could be a bit slower. I've noticed too but no big shake.

[3dman]

Also the version 10 program now wrote for 64bit so you would think that could make some difference or the new engine but no not so with converting from disk to mkv 3d I re did Finding dory 3d in version 9 exact same conversion time of 20 mins. for both version 9123 and version 1007.The FPS were slower and stayed slower till 50 percent of the movie converted in version 9 then it got to 125FPS but made no difference at all the total conversion time was exactly the same at 20 mins. so you see the FPS is not a good indicator as it varies on the conversion start and end and the reported FPS from version 9 to version 10.

[Chameleon]

Also the version 10 program now wrote for 64bit so you would think that could make some difference or the new engine but no not so with converting from disk to mkv 3d I re did Finding dory 3d in version 9 exact same conversion time of 20 mins. for both version 9123 and version 1007.The FPS were slower and stayed slower till 50 percent of the movie converted in version 9 then it got to 125FPS but made no difference at all the total conversion time was exactly the same at 20 mins. so you see the FPS is not a good indicator as it varies on the conversion start and end and the reported FPS from version 9 to version 10.

Its slower for sure especially from disc to file.

[3dman]

Then do a convert from disk to file as i have done with both versions of fab and post the results lets see what difference you are getting in total conversion time is with settings the same for both programs the same blu ray.I tested with a 3d blu ray to MKV 3d audio copy and the results are the same in both versions lets see what you come up with.

90312:Care to join the testing from blu ray disk to MKV audio copy total conversion time only never mind FPS as it differs in both latest version 9 and latest version 10 and from start to end.

[90312]

American Sniper from an HDD folder in 13 minutes, pretty slow.

[3dman]

From blu ray to file was the compare of-cause we can do folders after OP's problem.

[90312]

Knock yourself out I don't do them that way.

[3dman]

90312:Ok did it your way also this time using Salt a regular blu ray from folder on hard drive to Mkv main movie audio copy high quality.
With version 1010 got up to 512FPS 4 mins 40 secs. total conversion time.
With version 9321 got up to 552 FPS 4 mins.33 secs. total convert time.
Version 9 is 7 secs. slower no difference really.I am happy with both versions.
I think version 9 said using cuda for encode and decode and version 10 said only one but not the other but it seems to make almost no difference at 7 secs.