Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: H.264 vs. AIC for editing

  1. Default H.264 vs. AIC for editing

    Hi,

    I'm thinking about buying a Turbo.264 HD for mum and I in order to convert AVCHD to H.264 as well as speed up (dramatically) EyeTV exports.

    Before I decide though,

    Are there any disadvantages to editing using H.264 rather than the Apple Intermediate Codec (AIC)?

    Mum and I use iMovie for editing footage.


    Also, if anyone has any footage that they have converted, would you be able to upload a sample of the quality compared to the original or software only conversion.


    Thanks,

    Fred

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I haven't used one but my Apple-Savant is constantly going on about it. I'd be interested to see how a "normal" person finds it!

    Turbo.264 HD Review | DigMo!

  3. Default

    I've just exported a 9 minute clip from iMovie as H.264, 24MB/s, 1080p25, AAC@192kb/s. (1-pass)

    It took....wait for it.....1H30!!

    I'm using a 2.53GHz MacBook Pro 13, 4GB RAM, 9400M 256MB Shared Graphics.

    Would a higher graphics card, better CPU (2.66-3.06) increase the speed much, or would it be a case of speed increase = 3.06/2.53 for 3.06GHz for example. So that 9 minute clip would be exported in 1H30 * 2.53/3.06

    I understand Turbo.264 HD increases the speed of export drastically. If it can do it in even 1/3 of the time retaining the same quality that would be fantastic. If it could export that 9 minute clip in 9-18 minutes with the same quality, I would be over the moon.

    That would mean the 5H30 of footage that will probably end up being around a series of 20 minute clips (probably 4-5 in total), could be exported in roughly 1H20 to 2H40. That would be unbelieveably quick from my perspective. If it could do it in less than 5H I would be just as chuffed.

    I will keep this thread updated if I get it.

    BTW I am probably going to have to, because if the resulting movie from the 5H30 is around 1H30 lets say, converting it with the computer would take around 15H or 30H+ with multi-pass.

    If the resulting movie is 3H in total, 30-60H sounds a long time, especially if something goes wrong, not to mention the fact the computer will be practically unuseable during the conversion.

  4. Default

    Hi,

    I'm still concerned about output quality.

    I don't know if you or your friend would be prepared to help, but if I upload some sample footage to a temporary mobileme account, would you be prepared to put it through Turbo.264 HD with the following settings?

    16Mb/s Video, 1080p, 25fps, 256Kb/s Audio.
    Could you also time how long the encode takes for me using a timer - Apimac - Download programs for Mac

    If you could then upload the file back to the mobileme account for me to view, I would be so grateful.

    I'll email you with the account info and with the file link.

    Thanks,

    Fred

  5. Default

    I meant to say that the 5:45 minutes of video that I converted took 32 minutes to be converted and encoded to H.264 with the identical above settings (including de-interlace).

    If you could also set Turbo.264 HD to de-interlace that would be great

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Sorry Fred, I think you misunderstood.

    I don't have the Turbo but a mate is constantly telling me to get one. I would be interested to see how yours works and if you're satisfied before I splash out money myself.

  7. Default

    What I meant was if your mate had one, could he possibly convert the clip and upload, for the both of us?

  8. Default

    The footage I saw on the video of the above review looked horrible!

    It looked like it was less than 480p, not 720p as suggested.

    I wonder if that can be rectified by changing the settings?

  9. Default

    Hi,

    I bought the Turbo.264 HD in the end, on a risk basis, from the Apple Store, who said I couldn't return it at all. The one guy in the store who had one said he used it with Final Cut Pro and it was quite good.

    Well, I bought it and its brill. The image quality is identical to the original footage, the colours and sharpness are great and it encodes the files roughly 3x faster than my Mac CPU, still 2x realtime, but great nonetheless.

    Thoroughly recommended.

    I would post samples but I wouldn't know how to send them to you.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    No need for samples... Sounds good.

    Right, that goes on Santa's list then...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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