DVD Encoding Speeds, the 970, planned obsolesence...
Is it just me or have DVD encoding speeds increased little since iDVD first came out. Back then it was a big deal that Apple had gotten it down to 2x. But faster processors, even paired together haven't seemed to reduce the time at all.
So the first question- is there a good technical reason why doubling the processors and the mhz hasn't brought encoding speeds down to .5x?
Second question- is it reasonable that maybe the advantages of the 970 (faster bus, 64 bit, better altivec) promise such a jump in encoding times that Apple is simply putting all it's R&D into optomizing iDVD for it? Can anyone give an educated guess as to how much faster?
So the first question- is there a good technical reason why doubling the processors and the mhz hasn't brought encoding speeds down to .5x?
Second question- is it reasonable that maybe the advantages of the 970 (faster bus, 64 bit, better altivec) promise such a jump in encoding times that Apple is simply putting all it's R&D into optomizing iDVD for it? Can anyone give an educated guess as to how much faster?
Comments
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Is it just me or have DVD encoding speeds increased little since iDVD first came out. Back then it was a big deal that Apple had gotten it down to 2x. But faster processors, even paired together haven't seemed to reduce the time at all.
So the first question- is there a good technical reason why doubling the processors and the mhz hasn't brought encoding speeds down to .5x?
Second question- is it reasonable that maybe the advantages of the 970 (faster bus, 64 bit, better altivec) promise such a jump in encoding times that Apple is simply putting all it's R&D into optomizing iDVD for it? Can anyone give an educated guess as to how much faster?
Actually, that has more to do with the speed of the DVD burner, than it does with the encoding speed of the iDVD application. That is, of course, MHO.
i do imagine it might be harder for software to handle it faster speeds but i dont think that is an issue with 4x
Originally posted by Nonsuch
Apple is supposed to be releasing a new version of DVDSP soon; maybe they improved the encoding algorithm. We'll find out at NAB ...
Amen to that. Can I get a real VBR encoder please??!!!
Originally posted by AirSluf
Encoding speeds are completely seperate from burning speeds, encoding speeds are CPU bound, not spindle speed bound.
Do we know that encoding speed is CPU bound or could the FSB be the bottleneck? (actually curious)
Originally posted by Stoo
If it uses Altivec extensively, it'll be FSB bound (as Altivec needs huge amounts of bandwidth).
If that's the case, I think the 970 and its accompanying bus will completely transform the DVD industry.
MP3s and CDR drives completely changed the music industry. Even novice users were suddenly able to copy, store, and trade huge numbers of songs. The same is about to happen for movies and video! The rip, encode, and burn stages of this process were so long that, until recently, there wasn't much software designed to simplify the process. Unskilled uses would not only have to wait forever for a DVD to copy, but the software also wasn't very intuative. Programs like 42 have somewhat simplified the process, but the encoding still takes an impractical amount of time.
970 based machines will make DVD copying available to the masses. Rip everything to a quicktime compatible format. Encode and burn at will...
Originally posted by AirSluf
You attempt read too much detail into my comment. When comparing the CPU's processed output (whether throttled by FSB bottlenecks or not) to the effects of DVD drive spindle speed, the CPU output is directly related to the encoding task.
Yes, Altivec is the main reason encoding is radically faster on a G4 machine than any Pentium (unless the PC's options are set carefully with a corresponding degredation in quality and compression efficacy) and with heavy Altivec usage the FSB is the prime driver of the speed bottleneck, but that's about a level deeper into the minutae than the original question delved. A 970's altivec output will destroy a G4's Altivec output partly due to higher absolute clock speeds, but mostly due to massive improvements in memory bandwith to feed the Altivec beast.
Heheh... now I'm confused. Can you explain again?
Originally posted by dfiler
Heheh... now I'm confused. Can you explain again?
Here, let me. Basically because the 970 has better memory management and a faster bus, the encoding will take much less time to accomplish. I also believe (tell me if I am wrong), but the AltiVec calls on the 970 have been better refined and optimized, for even further improvement.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Here, let me. Basically because the 970 has better memory management and a faster bus, the encoding will take much less time to accomplish. I also believe (tell me if I am wrong), but the AltiVec calls on the 970 have been better refined and optimized, for even further improvement.
Obviously. (Even if I'd quibble with your layman explanation of advantages linked to the 970.)
I thought he was disagreeing for some reason. Anyway, not to get off track...
I agree that drive speed is currently the bottle neck while actually burning discs. However, 970 based machines are poised to change this, poised to change the way we use DVDs in conjunction with home computers. Hmmm... that came off sounding a bit too epic.
Currently, the duration of the rip and encode stages are enough to deter all but the most determined users from attempting to copy DVD content. If the rip-time is trivialized by the 970 (and accompanying MB and memory) then there will be little reason to not copy DVDs onto your harddrive. Similarly, the time required to re-encode back to mpeg will be trivialized. When this happens, hardware manufacturers will likely rush to produce faster drives.
Shhh. Don't tell the MPAA.
Barto