Author Topic: Slow DVD burner (Read 382 times)

Ripsnort · « **on:** December 27, 2004, 08:37:21 AM »

This is a new DVD/CD RW DRU-540A. Description is below in quotes. On an average, it takes 30 minutes to burn a 5 minute long WMV file onto a DVD. It does something called "transcoding" that takes FOREVER, the actual burning itself it relatively short. What is this transcoding, and how can I speed this process up?

I burned 1.5 hours of home movies on a DVD yesterday and it took almost 8 hours to complete!

I suspect that they Nero software bundled with it may be the culprit.

Quote

Burn DVD+R discs at 12X maximum speed on certified 8X DVD+R media. DVD-R discs are burned at 8X maximum, and DVD+RW discs are burned at 4X maximum. CD-R and CD-RW discs are burned at 40X and 24X maximum, respectively. Combine this performance with award winning Nero software suite and you have an ideal all-in-one DVD burner. Now burning your home movies, digital pictures, music, and data onto DVD and CD is faster and more convenient than ever. Internal EIDE/ATAPI interface drive is easy to install and can take the place of an existing CD-RW or CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drive. Choose the brand that invented dual format burners, and still does it best.

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2004, 09:21:54 AM »

maybe some kind of compression?

If you fit 1.5 hours of video onto a single dvd, you compressed it somewhere as I can only get an hour of uncompressed video into 4.7gb dvd

I use studio 8 to create the movie and then Nero to burn it. Mine is one of the original 4x but it only burns at 2.4x but doesn't take that long to actually burn. To edit/create is another story .. it takes a while and I think is related to the cpu power

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2004, 09:43:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
maybe some kind of compression?

If you fit 1.5 hours of video onto a single dvd, you compressed it somewhere as I can only get an hour of uncompressed video into 4.7gb dvd

I use studio 8 to create the movie and then Nero to burn it. Mine is one of the original 4x but it only burns at 2.4x but doesn't take that long to actually burn. To edit/create is another story .. it takes a while and I think is related to the cpu power

First off, when I say "movie" I mean something I've created using still pictures, transitions, titles, and audio. That is what consists of my "movie".

As far as what I use to create this movies, I'm using Windoze Movie Maker 2 to create the movies. It creates a WMV format.

I just ran alittle test, using a 10 min movie created in Windose Movie Maker 2.
I've updated the Nero software since posting this . It estimated 43 minutes to complete the "Transcoding" and burn (the actual burn is fast) of this 10 min movie.

Now I'm using Windows Codec to reformat the original WMV to DVD quality, which Windows Codec says will take 23 minutes. Then I will try Nero again with this new format and see how long it estimates to transcode this project.

I'm planning on getting Pinnacle Studio Plus soon so I can throw the Microsoft movie maker out.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #3 on:** December 27, 2004, 10:46:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
First off, when I say "movie" I mean something I've created using still pictures, transitions, titles, and audio. That is what consists of my "movie".

As far as what I use to create this movies, I'm using Windoze Movie Maker 2 to create the movies. It creates a WMV format.

I just ran alittle test, using a 10 min movie created in Windose Movie Maker 2.
I've updated the Nero software since posting this . It estimated 43 minutes to complete the "Transcoding" and burn (the actual burn is fast) of this 10 min movie.

Now I'm using Windows Codec to reformat the original WMV to DVD quality, which Windows Codec says will take 23 minutes. Then I will try Nero again with this new format and see how long it estimates to transcode this project.

I'm planning on getting Pinnacle Studio Plus soon so I can throw the Microsoft movie maker out.

Well, this experiment didn't provide any faster results, still 46 minutes for Nero to "transcode" the data. (12 min long Movie with still pics, transitions, titles, audio)

Skuzzy · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2004, 10:52:13 AM »

The transcoding is the process of taking all the video and audio data, running it through a CODEC, and building the structure needed to play on DVD.
It is a very CPU intensive process.

The amount of time will be driven by the speed of the CPU, and the CODEC used. The Pinnacle MPEG2 CODEC is a pretty good CODEC and reasonably fast. It uses a fixed bit-rate stream.
If you movies do not have a lot of high speed action in them, you can usually get away with using the default rate, but if you have a lot of high speed action, manually adjust the bit-rate to, at least, 8.

Canopus also has a pretty good MPEG2 CODEC, and it uses variable bit-rates.

Pinnacle's software is pretty finicky about the hardware and can go bonkers on you without notice, but once you get used to what you can and cannot do, it is ok.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2004, 11:17:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
The transcoding is the process of taking all the video and audio data, running it through a CODEC, and building the structure needed to play on DVD.
It is a very CPU intensive process.

The amount of time will be driven by the speed of the CPU, and the CODEC used. The Pinnacle MPEG2 CODEC is a pretty good CODEC and reasonably fast. It uses a fixed bit-rate stream.
If you movies do not have a lot of high speed action in them, you can usually get away with using the default rate, but if you have a lot of high speed action, manually adjust the bit-rate to, at least, 8.

Canopus also has a pretty good MPEG2 CODEC, and it uses variable bit-rates.

Pinnacle's software is pretty finicky about the hardware and can go bonkers on you without notice, but once you get used to what you can and cannot do, it is ok.

Thanks Skuzzy. I'll go with the Pinnacle stuff.

I have a AMD2200 (Coal Burner) but I've got a new laptop with 2.8 Intel chip on the way. Between the Pinnacle software and new faster CPU, hopefully it will cut down the transcoding time.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2004, 11:21:43 AM »

The transcoding is 100% CPU dependent Rip. The faster the CPU, and the more free RAM available, the faster the transcoding.

schizer · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2004, 05:20:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
The transcoding is 100% CPU dependent Rip. The faster the CPU, and the more free RAM available, the faster the transcoding.

Exactly, just for reference my XP2500+ running at 2.4ghz with 1GB of memory takes around 35-40 minutes to encode a 2 hour movie. Burning takes only about 8-9 minutes with 8X media.

schizer · « **Reply #8 on:** December 27, 2004, 05:23:08 PM »

Also are is your Hard Drive running on the same IDE that your optical drives are? Or do you have both optical drives as master/slave on one IDE channel? The latter config being what it needs to be

Ripsnort · « **Reply #9 on:** December 27, 2004, 05:30:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by schizer
Also are is your Hard Drive running on the same IDE that your optical drives are? Or do you have both optical drives as master/slave on one IDE channel? The latter config being what it needs to be

Both are configured on one IDE channel.

214thCavalier · « **Reply #10 on:** December 27, 2004, 05:44:15 PM »

Thats a major problem Rip, you really should try and set your hard drive as master on 1 ide and the cd/dvd drive as master on the other channel.
In fact some cd/dvd drives will not work correctly unless they are set as master.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #11 on:** December 27, 2004, 06:26:07 PM »

Yes, the slowest device wins on the IDE bus, in terms of the DMA rate they will use.

Putting the devices on separate IDE buses will ensure your hard drive will run at its fastest speed.

Schizer, those numbers will not mean much without knowing which CODEC you are using and how it was configured (i.e. bit-rate, fixed, variable,...), along with the original format of the video/audio file(s) (i.e., did they have to be decoded before encoding?).

schizer · « **Reply #12 on:** December 27, 2004, 07:55:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Yes, the slowest device wins on the IDE bus, in terms of the DMA rate they will use.

Putting the devices on separate IDE buses will ensure your hard drive will run at its fastest speed.

Schizer, those numbers will not mean much without knowing which CODEC you are using and how it was configured (i.e. bit-rate, fixed, variable,...), along with the original format of the video/audio file(s) (i.e., did they have to be decoded before encoding?).

Whatever Codec DVDShrink uses, as well as pinnacle instant copy, both take the same amount of time.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2004, 01:24:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Thats a major problem Rip, you really should try and set your hard drive as master on 1 ide and the cd/dvd drive as master on the other channel.
In fact some cd/dvd drives will not work correctly unless they are set as master.

Tried this set up as you suggested. The speed is the same. I'll just have to wait until the new laptop comes.

Thanks all for suggestions above.