Roxio promises 10x faster video encoding with Roxio Creator NXT 2

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Roxio promises 10x faster video encoding with Roxio Creator NXT 2[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2013/09/myce-roxio-creator-nxt-2-95x75.gif[/newsimage]
[quote][/quote]
Read the full article here: http://www.myce.com/news/roxio-promises-10x-faster-video-encoding-with-roxio-creator-nxt-2-68861/

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

10x faster than what exactly? Using Paint on an 80386SX?

This is one of those exaggerated marketing claims that makes people distrust everything else they have to say about the product.


#3

^Absolutely right Dragemester.

Just looking at the free X264 encoder, it has tremendous speed variations between its UltraFast preset and the glacially slow Placebo setting.

So what is Roxio comparing themselves to?

I’d like to know if these guys are actually offering a blu ray authoring module with menu support, or if it is just AVCHD.


#4

Speed usually is the inverse of quality. Go marketing department!!!


#5

That is possible depending on how they’ve written the code.

When DVD2One first came out people refused to believe it could be so fast but it turned out they’d written the time critical routines in assembly language.

It’s still the fastest thing out there for DVD transcoding but it’s more than possible for others to go down the same route to get a dramatic speed boost with identical quality.

I’m not saying they have in this instance but it’s certainly possible.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#6

Maybe, but something like x264 is already heavily written in assembly with lots of hand optimization. My guess is that Roxio plans to use Intel’s QuickSync for a speed boost.


#7

QuickSync won’t work across the board. You have to have a compatible cpu.

And it is generally recognized as producing inferior video compared to the software encoders.


#8

[QUOTE=Kerry56;2700792]QuickSync won’t work across the board. You have to have a compatible cpu.

And it is generally recognized as producing inferior video compared to the software encoders.[/QUOTE]
Hence my comment about speed and quality generally being the inverse of each other. :wink:


#9

H2.65 is supposed to be 10x the compression ratio of the older standards… Maybe they’re talking about that??

This basically would put 480p video in at ~110 MB hour? That’s almost 3 audio cds compressed @ 80mb per disc. So, extrapolate how much would fit on a DVD SL, DL, BD SL, DL and it’s quite impressive for the future when BD players can play all this w/o the MPAA throwing a hissy fit about DRM.


#10

Which standard? H265/HEVC is generally thought to offer a 50% reduction in file size compared to H264. Though some of the tests I’ve seen only show closer to 40% improvement.


#11

I think the improvements % gets larger when your talking about very large file sizes to begin with (higher resolution and larger bitrates). SD would only get about 40-45%. This would make a 175mb file (avi) 105mb-- right on par with what I said. Usually, you can compromise the bit rates for even better ratios to under 100MB.

However, as most people consider files under 100mb to be virii or fake files I doubt they’ll compromise the bitrates to bring file sizes under 100mb.