Suitable laptop specs to handle Handbrake compression well.

JustAnotherSaver

If these past few days told me anything with this disk recovery lark, it's that I can't really give up the PC for long periods of time. On that note, let's discuss Handbrake...

So the system requirements are pretty easy to get to: https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/1.0.0/technical/system-requirements.html

Windows

• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Athlon X2, or better
• Free Memory:
  • 256 MB for transcoding standard definition video
  • 1 GB for transcoding high definition video
  • 2 GB or more for transcoding 4K video
• Screen Resolution: 1024x768 or better (higher if running in High-DPI Mode, above 96 DPI or 100%)
• System Storage:
  • 50 MB for the HandBrake app
  • 2 GB or more recommended for processing and storing your new videos

However I think my PC more than meets those requirements....

AMD Phenom 2 X6 1050T 2.80GHz

ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 mobo

16GB DDR3 Corsair RAM

Nvidia GeForce GTX460 1GB GPU (although for some reason mine doesn't look like all the images that come up when you google that. Mine has 2 fans, not 1)

Win7 64bit Pro (last time I did a Handbrake run) on a 256GB Samsung 830 SSD

Plenty of storage to at least to 1 blu ray, never mind a few. 7200rpm HDDs as well as the SSD.

And the 'issue' is, it takes so long for Handbrake to do 1 blu ray. I know this is dependent on various things. Am I going high spec on the settings or grainy images for example.

What my aim was was to compress the movie but without any obvious loss in image or audio quality. I want to watch it & tell no difference from it being a direct blu ray rip and from everything I've read - that IS possible.

So when I was doing test runs, these were taking anything from 5hours minimum to 10hours.

I don't know if this is generally what to expect. If so then forget this.

I'd obviously like to get the duration down but it depends what is realistic.

NOTE: The aim is not to get the duration down as low as is possible. It's to get it down as low as is possibly BUT the priority is also keeping image & audio quality where there is no obvious loss.

If we're talking taking a 5hour compression and turning it in to 4hrs30mins then it's a little pointless but if it's anything significant then my idea was seeing what laptops are on the second hand market where the specs will enable me to compress in a good timeframe.

But 1) I don't know what (spec wise) I am looking for to achieve this and 2) I don't know what compression timeframe I can realistically aim for.

gefnew

Here is some info from the software people.
HandBrake Documentation — Performance
Lenovo Thinkpad E14 Gen 2 14" Laptop - Intel Core i7-1165G7, 32GB 3200mhz RAM, 512GB SSD, FHD IPS screen - £897.83 @ Lenovo | hotukdeals

Sandtree

Video conversion is virtually all about the CPU and so if you are looking to buy a new machine that's where to focus the monies. You missed quoting the last part of the minimium specs which says Windows 7SP1 is only supported with limitations these days and so that may or may not be contributing to your issues depending on which version of Handbrake you are running.

Its been years since I had a drive to be able to rip disks so dont know the current speed of modern CPUs but even looking at old benchmarks the difference between basic and top tier processors could be 3x and so add generational differences too and it'd be even greater.

Neil_Jones

JustAnotherSaver said:

What my aim was was to compress the movie but without any obvious loss in image or audio quality. I want to watch it & tell no difference from it being a direct blu ray rip and from everything I've read - that IS possible.[/quote]

So when I was doing test runs, these were taking anything from 5hours minimum to 10hours.

I don't know if this is generally what to expect. If so then forget this.

I'd obviously like to get the duration down but it depends what is realistic.

NOTE: The aim is not to get the duration down as low as is possible. It's to get it down as low as is possibly BUT the priority is also keeping image & audio quality where there is no obvious loss.

If we're talking taking a 5hour compression and turning it in to 4hrs30mins then it's a little pointless but if it's anything significant then my idea was seeing what laptops are on the second hand market where the specs will enable me to compress in a good timeframe.

But 1) I don't know what (spec wise) I am looking for to achieve this and 2) I don't know what compression timeframe I can realistically aim for.

Technically your DVD/Blu-ray is already compressed at source to get it on disk, all you're doing with Handbrake is compressing it even more.  The more you compress it, the more artefacts you'll introduce.

And of course if you watch SD DVD on a massive screen, it's already being effectively upscaled by the player/TV so you won't get a pristine picture.

A laptop (any laptop I would have thought) will almost certainly not have enough power to bring the encoding time down from a desktop.  This is one area where a desktop will outperform a laptop any time.

With a decent desktop machine you can do a SD Handbrake session in about a quarter (ish) of the length of the film.  Blu-Ray, being five times more resolution the timescale will be closer to the length of the film.

[Deleted User]

1. Don't use a laptop for this purpose. They are designed to be energy saving devices running at average to low loads on battery (except gaming laptops). The processors are usually cut back compared to the desktop equivalents in terms of grunt. The cooling is a compromise and running them at the max for several hours will be a noisy experience and almost certainly result in the CPU reaching thermal throttle temperature and not running at full pelt throughout.
   
   I have a gaming laptop - running at full pelt 60w CPU + 70w GPU it gets very hot and loud and usually throttles at max workload.
   
   
2. Buying a laptop for only video transcoding work is wasteful, you don't need a screen, keyboard, touchpad, battery etc. Professionals use a server for this purposes. Your money will go further buying only the hardware you need for the task, a CPU / [GPU] / RAM / SSD / network adaptor tuned spec wise for what you need.
   
   For example a mini PC / NUC - with no monitor / keyboard / mouse - just access it via remote desktop from your main PC, set up the tasks you need and let it get on with it. 
   
   
3. Time frame - what is your workload - does it matter whether it is 24 hours or 4 hours per Blu-ray? How many and how often? You can set up automated workloads in handbrake so you can give it all the data up front and just let it go, or use an app called Tdarr to manage your workflow.
   
   
4. CPU speed and choice  - You can throw money at a high spec CPU but you will get diminishing returns - a 32 core £2000 CPU may be 2-3 times faster than a 6 core £200 CPU. For professionals with publishing deadlines that is a great investment, for home use maybe not. An AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a great choice for this at £200 for example, but you haven't mentioned budget so no idea where you want to land.
   
   
5. GPU / Nvenc - Yes you can use a GPU for transcoding, it will be fast as the multiple cores are optimised for decoding and encoding video very quickly - but at the expense of quality and size of the final product. I don't think this is what you want so push your budget at the CPU and not the GPU.
   
   
6. Quality vs Speed - So this is all down to a million different settings that you can choose - each one has a trade off. You also need to think about who and how the video is going to be played back as well to decide on how far to go. Some examples to consider:
   
   AVC (H.264) or HEVC (H.265) - the latter is the newer codec which can get up to half the size at the same quality as the former (or twice the quality at the same size). But it will take longer to encode in H.265 and you need to consider what devices it will be played back as it is not quite as universal as H-264 yet.
   
   Software vs Hardware encoding so I touched on GPU's being fast but lower quality and bigger file size. Modern CPU's have hardware acceleration for H.264/5 but again there is a trade of compared to using software encoding in terms of quality but it will be quicker.
   
   Bitrate - Blu-rays can be from 30mbit/s for 1080 to over 100mbit/s for 4K - are you going to be streaming this over the internet or on local devices on your network? I'd suggest 10mbit/s minimum for H.264 for good quality but you might get away with 5mbit/s for H.265 - all depends on how decerning you are about quality - some people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p - others might instantly know you have dropped the bit rate by 25%.
   
   Playback device - Just a laptop with 1080p small screen or less or 50 inch 4K TV - if it is the latter then you might want to re-encode for higher bitrates.
   
   Type of movie - Animation can withstand much higher compression and lower bit rates. Movies with fast action scenes will need a higher bitrate.
   
   
7. What is the storage cost trade off? Typical Blurays are about 35-50GB so so can get about 100 on a 4TB drive that costs about £90. If you have 400 Blu-rays it will cost about £360 to store them. Or you can spend £400 on equipment to compress them to half the size and it will cost you £580 in total. Or compress to quarter size and it will cost £490. 
   
   
8. Why can't you just watch the original Blu-ray? So what is wrong with popping the original in a player to enjoy at original quality and avoid all the above?
   
   

No disrespect meant but you have jumped straight to a solution (laptop) before stating your requirements - how many Blu-rays, how often, storage capabilities and size, budget, playback devices, types of movie etc. That helps shape the solution rather than thinking of a solution and trying to make it fit your needs.

JustAnotherSaver

Neil_Jones said:

Technically your DVD/Blu-ray is already compressed at source to get it on disk, all you're doing with Handbrake is compressing it even more.  The more you compress it, the more artefacts you'll introduce.

And of course if you watch SD DVD on a massive screen, it's already being effectively upscaled by the player/TV so you won't get a pristine picture.

I get the impression we're being a bit finicky here?

I'm not getting in to the science of it all. I'm taking it for what it is & that is - when I watch a blu-ray, the quality is superb. Whether this has been compressed already or not at that stage is completely irrelevant because the quality is just superb.

And compare it to a DVD, the difference is clear.

We could go further & discuss 4k, 8k, & whatevertheweather but I'm sure there comes a point where Joe Bloggs really can't tell the difference between A & B but that's just taking it to realms too far for this simple query.

Joe Bloggs can (at least this one here can) tell the difference between a blu-ray and a DVD and what he's wanting is to save hard disk space but not compromise on the quality.

So after the compression, this Joe Bloggs is not wanting to be able to tell that it's been compressed further. Not wanting it to go from blu-ray quality to DVD quality ... because then he may as well have just bought DVDs & ripped them direct.

Such as when you're in Plex and you tweak the video setting - going from original quality to taking it down 1 or 2 notches. Maybe say 12Mbps. I can't really tell the difference. So if we 'did away with' anything above that quality for example, I probably wouldn't notice. It'd save a bit of space say.

But keep coming down & down on the video quality side of things & you start to tell things become a bit more grainy. I don't want that.

JustAnotherSaver

I came back to say something to Neil. Never even noticed tallmansix had responded while I was typing the above out. Sorry.

Neil_Jones said:

A laptop (any laptop I would have thought) will almost certainly not have enough power to bring the encoding time down from a desktop.  This is one area where a desktop will outperform a laptop any time.

I came back to say what I should've in the earlier post - in that if a laptop is not up to the job then that is fine & I accept that. It was just an idea I was throwing out there as possibly being able to sort a job out on the relatively cheap.

If it can't be done this way then that's fine. Doesn't hurt to ask.

[Deleted User] said:

1. Buying a laptop for only video transcoding work is wasteful, you don't need a screen, keyboard, touchpad, battery etc. Professionals use a server for this purposes. Your money will go further buying only the hardware you need for the task, a CPU / [GPU] / RAM / SSD / network adaptor tuned spec wise for what you need.
   
   For example a mini PC / NUC - with no monitor / keyboard / mouse - just access it via remote desktop from your main PC, set up the tasks you need and let it get on with it. 
   
   

This is why it pays to ask - never thought of that.

Speaking of pays, what sort of price point would you expect to be in to achieve this? It may seal the deal.

I had been considering a new PC build. That money, due to the ongoing drive issue, is now going towards a NAS & the PC build will be next year/2024 at the earliest.

[Deleted User] said:

1. Time frame - what is your workload - does it matter whether it is 24 hours or 4 hours per Blu-ray? How many and how often? You can set up automated workloads in handbrake so you can give it all the data up front and just let it go, or use an app called Tdarr to manage your workflow.
   
   

How many - initially it would be many as in I don't know, 50-100 at a guess without going through how many I have (not as many since the drive issue). After this it would be 'as and when'.

As for does it matter how long - that depends.

If it's on my main PC then yes as if it's tied up then I really shouldn't be using it, which is a problem.

If it's on a different machine to my PC then no it doesn't matter whether it's 4 or 24 hours at all because it can just sit in the spare room doing its thing.

[Deleted User] said:

1. 
   
   
2. CPU speed and choice  - You can throw money at a high spec CPU but you will get diminishing returns - a 32 core £2000 CPU may be 2-3 times faster than a 6 core £200 CPU. For professionals with publishing deadlines that is a great investment, for home use maybe not. An AMD Ryzen 5 5600X is a great choice for this at £200 for example, but you haven't mentioned budget so no idea where you want to land.
   
   

Because I don't really have a set budget in mind. I was hoping cheap. Couple £100, which may instantly dictate that the job can't be achieved.

What I'm not wanting to do is spend many £100s or even close to £1000 because as I say, I was wanting to do a new PC build this year which is being pushed back. When that's done I will probably be in the £1000-£1500 area so I don't really want to pay that twice & I don't want to pay that NOW.

[Deleted User] said:

1. 
   
   
2. GPU / Nvenc - Yes you can use a GPU for transcoding, it will be fast as the multiple cores are optimised for decoding and encoding video very quickly - but at the expense of quality and size of the final product. I don't think this is what you want so push your budget at the CPU and not the GPU.
   

Yeah I read a piece on a forum the other day kind of (but not totally) poo-pooing GPU transcoding. They were saying you want to be using the CPU really.

[Deleted User] said:

1. Quality vs Speed - So this is all down to a million different settings that you can choose - each one has a trade off. You also need to think about who and how the video is going to be played back as well to decide on how far to go. Some examples to consider:
   
   AVC (H.264) or HEVC (H.265) - the latter is the newer codec which can get up to half the size at the same quality as the former (or twice the quality at the same size). But it will take longer to encode in H.265 and you need to consider what devices it will be played back as it is not quite as universal as H-264 yet.
   
   Software vs Hardware encoding so I touched on GPU's being fast but lower quality and bigger file size. Modern CPU's have hardware acceleration for H.264/5 but again there is a trade of compared to using software encoding in terms of quality but it will be quicker.
   
   Bitrate - Blu-rays can be from 30mbit/s for 1080 to over 100mbit/s for 4K - are you going to be streaming this over the internet or on local devices on your network? I'd suggest 10mbit/s minimum for H.264 for good quality but you might get away with 5mbit/s for H.265 - all depends on how decerning you are about quality - some people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p - others might instantly know you have dropped the bit rate by 25%.
   
   Playback device - Just a laptop with 1080p small screen or less or 50 inch 4K TV - if it is the latter then you might want to re-encode for higher bitrates.
   
   Type of movie - Animation can withstand much higher compression and lower bit rates. Movies with fast action scenes will need a higher bitrate.
   
   

codec - yeah I read that the 265 takes longer to do and that you may not get direct play back with that.

BUT as I think I've mentioned to you previously? I want to in a way future proof my library. I don't have surround sound right now so I could do away with the 7.1 audio, the 5.1 audio. I have a Sonos Beam & that's it.

BUT ... I may have surround sound at a later date, or even never. My sister who may or may not access my media library may or may not have surround sound and if she doesn't then she may or may not get it at a later date. You get my point.

Bitrate - me myself, I'll be doing it over my home network 99.9% of the time. Maybe 100%. When it's all done, the files will be stored on the NAS & not on drives in my PC. There MAY be a time when I'm at someones house or when I'm in a hotel or whatever but probably not.

Also ... my house is fully wired. I don't like wireless connections. Cat6 is what I put in.

However, other people - sister, mother, brother, they would not be accessing it directly as their physical location will be different.

720 vs 1080 ... Unlike sound where I'm kind of deaf, I actually can tell the difference between 720 vs 1080 video.

Though yes, I appreciate you were only using it to illustrate an example.

Device - 99.9% the time it will be my living room TV. 58" 4K at the moment but obviously it isn't going to last forever so will change one day.

Type - I get your point. The vast majority of our genre watching is action movies. We do watch a bit of a range but that's the most popular genre for us.

[Deleted User] said:

1. What is the storage cost trade off? Typical Blurays are about 35-50GB so so can get about 100 on a 4TB drive that costs about £90. If you have 400 Blu-rays it will cost about £360 to store them. Or you can spend £400 on equipment to compress them to half the size and it will cost you £580 in total. Or compress to quarter size and it will cost £490. 
   
   

Fair enough.

I'm just responding to bits of the post now but after reading what you guys said, I've kinda decided that I should just sit tight until I get the new PC build.

Or set this one up to do 1 movie per weekend through the night.

[Deleted User] said:

1. 
   
   
2. Why can't you just watch the original Blu-ray? So what is wrong with popping the original in a player to enjoy at original quality and avoid all the above?
   
   

I can't actually answer that one.

Well, I can, but not on an open forum. Too many holier-than-thou's will get upset.

[Deleted User] said:

1. 
   
   

No disrespect meant but you have jumped straight to a solution (laptop) before stating your requirements - how many Blu-rays, how often, storage capabilities and size, budget, playback devices, types of movie etc. That helps shape the solution rather than thinking of a solution and trying to make it fit your needs.

None taken & I accept your point, you're right.

gefnew

Would this be of interest with your ongoing quest.
Samsung 870 QVO 8 TB SATA 2.5 - £490.40 at Amazon EU | hotukdeals

debitcardmayhem

gefnew said:

Would this be of interest with your ongoing quest.
Samsung 870 QVO 8 TB SATA 2.5 - £490.40 at Amazon EU | hotukdeals

Huh!! not recommended for archive/backup for that price you can buy 3xRust Buckets

JustAnotherSaver

gefnew said:

Would this be of interest with your ongoing quest.
Samsung 870 QVO 8 TB SATA 2.5 - £490.40 at Amazon EU | hotukdeals

Probably not I would imagine. 

Specs are just specs to me. I don't know how it translates in to real world results.

And if the guys say a laptop will be no good then I trust a laptop will be no good. 

Jenni_D

I don't think it's a case of a laptop being NO good, just not optimal (both performance- and price-wise) for the intended task.

And as you've ascertained ... an SSD is not optimal for longer-term storage; and in a NAS environment the data throughput from the disk drive is likely not the limiting factor anyway when streaming from the NAS to a TV, so the faster speed of an SSD is probably not beneficial vs the cost.