EyeTV Lounge • View topic

by **gelco** » March 21st, 2009, 7:46 am

Hi I'm very interested to find out the Output Size of the Media File. I have a Canon HF100 AVCHD videocam. The raw MTS file after converting to viewable format using Final Cut Express are Very Large. So can someone pls provide some data? Example. 10 mins of AVCHD or mts file converted to 1080p Apple TV output will equal how big size a file?

Also, I'm assuming raw MTS file refers to AVCHD files are the same?

Thank you!

by **Mike Evangelist** » March 21st, 2009, 1:19 pm

When you bring MTS files into Final Cut Pro, they are converted to either Apple Intermediate Codec or ProRes. Each of those is quite large, as you mentioned. But that is required in order for FCP to be able to edit it. The Turbo.264 HD converts files to H.264 format, which is not editable by FCP.

In cases where you simply want your MTS files trimmed and converted to a high quality playable format, the Turbo is ideal. If you need to bring your files into FCP, the Turbo can be used after editing to speed up the export process, but it doesn't do anything for the slow/large import process to FCP.

As to output size, I grabbed a 60 second clip from my Panasonic HD camcorder and converted it using the 1080P preset in the Turbo. The output file was 69 MBs.

And yes, AVCHD is the format contained in MTS files; so they are the same, more or less.

by **yminoh** » March 21st, 2009, 2:15 pm

Two Questions:

#1. Is this a real hardware update or just a software update wrapped in a new enclosure?

#2. Is the pixelation problem fixed with this new device?

Thanks!

by **Mike Evangelist** » March 21st, 2009, 2:25 pm

The Turbo.264 HD is an all-new hardware design.

The issue with macro-blocking in some output files with the old Turbo was due to limitations its encoder chipset. The new Turbo has as completely different chipset.

by **yminoh** » March 21st, 2009, 6:28 pm

Thanks for a prompt response!

I have one last question and then I am ready to order :-)

#3 Is there an option to use or not use deinterlace? I believe deinterlace is 'always on' with the 1st gen Turbo .264.

Thanks

by **Mike Evangelist** » March 21st, 2009, 6:36 pm

Here's the available interlace settings...

: interlace-settings.jpg (20.13 KiB) Viewed 1596 times

by **zaxxon** » March 22nd, 2009, 12:45 pm

Hi!

As I understand it, .mts are AVCHD files which are h.264 coded.

So why would one have to RE-code these files to h.264? If I want an .m4v or .mov we should just put it into another container?

what am I missing...

by **physicsguy** » March 22nd, 2009, 7:25 pm

Can you please explain the 4 deinterlace methods (in detail)? Thanks.

by **sjk** » March 22nd, 2009, 7:57 pm

physicsguy wrote:Can you please explain the 4 deinterlace methods (in detail)?

Have you tried a web search for that information? It's not specific to Turbo.264.

by **chrispy** » March 22nd, 2009, 9:29 pm

KathleenBrown wrote:We are unable to offer hardware upgrades for free or at a reduced cost. You will need to purchase a new device and software bundle in order to upgrade to the Turbo.264 HD.

The only exception to this policy are those purchases made within the last thirty days. Please contact us with your receipt and purchase information - if you are within Elgato's standard thirty-day return period, we are happy to assist with a swap for this new device. Please note that there may be an additional charge for this item, to make up for the difference in cost between these two products.

Kathleen
Elgato Systems

That is so extremely disappointing! What a slap in the face!

I bought my original Turbo.264 in the faith Elgato stood behind their products. I have waited for ages on the hopes and promises Elgato would "fix" their many, many issues with my Turbo.264 product (blockiness, bluriness, sound, etc.) and you've either ignored my issues, said it was out of your hands or said it was "in spec." I now avoid your products and tell all my friends to do so as well. I've seen other companies who have treated their customers this way and believe me, they do not survive too long. Loyal customers help a company get through the bad times (ex: Apple) whereas when companies ignore their customers, they go belly up in no time. It's sad too as the Mac community needs as many hardware vendors as they can get. RIP.

PS: Oh yeah, and I'm trying to get the word out...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread. ... ost7326944

by **AlexTheStampede** » March 23rd, 2009, 2:05 am

While i understand everybody's issues with the t.264....
GUYS! They got http://www.everythingusb.com/ads_instan ... 12252.html that thing and wrote Mac drivers.

And also hardware limitations are going to be there, always. Remember that to have fast results, you need dedicated hardware, and dedicated hardware does only one thing. If in a few months will pop out let's say, a new h265 codec, h264 dedicated hardware won't be able to handle it. Next wave of HD resolutions? Actual HD encoders won't support them. A new higher profile for h264? Actual hardware won't support it.
Inside those usb stick you won't find a cpu that will handle whaever you will throw at it, but a VERY specific chip.

so obviously the t.264 HD will soon piss off some people like the old one is doing now. But the same wouldn't apply if your video card dosen't support, say Vertex Shaders v25. You'd just accept it. It's the same thing, hardware solutions are useful but will become obsolete, while software ones will still support newer technologies, but slower. When i had my P3 #400mhz it took me 9 hours to rip a dvd to a dumb divx. Now my core2duo does the same job in better quality (h264) in realtime. That old P3 would still do the h264 encode if i wanted to, but it would take ages.

Hopefully i didn't confuse you more :-|

by **LewisB** » March 23rd, 2009, 9:09 am

Mike Evangelist wrote:The Turbo.264 HD is an all-new hardware design.

The issue with macro-blocking in some output files with the old Turbo was due to limitations its encoder chipset. The new Turbo has as completely different chipset.

Mike, does this mean that the macro-blocking issue is un-solvable with the old turbo?

Thanks
Lewis

by **chrispy** » March 23rd, 2009, 9:13 am

My bet is he won't answer that question because that would be admitting they sold flawed product and open themselves up for a class action.

by **DtFan1** » March 23rd, 2009, 2:26 pm

chrispy wrote:My bet is he won't answer that question because that would be admitting they sold flawed product and open themselves up for a class action.

Class Action?

I really don't want this thread to turn into an ElGato bashfest.

Although I too found some limitations to the t.264 outputs for DVD to h264 exports, I still think they make solid products that work great.

Instead of pointing fingers at ElGato and expecting them to do something about a $99 device that I could have researched better, I built a Quad Core linux box that runs handbrake to meet my needs.

The t.264 still does what it is supposed to, encode video. It was only $99 so I'm not going to cry about it. I'm definately not going to give elgato a hard time for releasing a device that costs far less than a new Mac would. Also, it does (in most situations) increase encoding speeds regardless of the "limitations". This doesn't mean that I won't be more cautious before I purchase a t.264 hd, but that is my problem, not theirs.

BTW, I still use my t.264 to compress recorded HD TV shows on my mac mini. It does it faster than my mac mini (C2D 2GHz) would on its own and lowers the total power consumption. The picture quality on these encodes are more than adequate with the default AppleTV setting.

I look forward to more benchmarks and software/feature reviews for the t.264 hd. If it can encode DVD's to h264 @ 1500kbps while looking like the output that I get from my handbrake settings, I will gladly buy one or more.

by **AlexTheStampede** » March 23rd, 2009, 2:32 pm

Disturbia wrote:There is no such a thing as h265 codec ... or is there already and I don't know????

Don't worry, it happens every time i make an example. h265 dosen't exists... not yet at least XD

by **Jermanowsky** » March 23rd, 2009, 8:08 pm

Disturbia wrote:We are talking about the good old DVD movies / a few video clips here and there on the internet which were converted to the same old codecs such as mpeg, divx and etc. This product fails on almost over 80% of them with no shame!

I must be lucky... 100% of the conversions I've done with Turbo .264 have worked flawlessly. I use Turbo´s software for whatever-to-iPhone conversion, RoadMovie+Turbo for MKV-to-AppleTV (for adding subs) and Handbrake for DVD-to-AppleTV (as I need multiple audio tracks).

The only issue for me is that my MKV files are 720p, while the resulting AppleTV files are 540p. But that is my fault, I purchased the Turbo without reading the specs in detail. And that's were the new Turbo HD enters the scene to (possibly) save my day.

Will I get rid of my Turbo? Don't think so. I have long been wishing for a Mac Mini to work as HTPC, connected to my satellite antena to record SD movies with my EyeTV 250 (currently hooked up to my iMac). Turbo will help export to whatever I want, faster.

I've ordered a Turbo HD. Will let you know how it goes.

by **chrispy** » March 24th, 2009, 12:03 am

Disturbia wrote:
Jermanowsky wrote:I must be lucky... 100% of the conversions..

It's good to know!

Yeah, but he's talking about the iPhone so you can crank down the bitrate (helps with the blockiness) and of course you're not going to see the blurriness (at least not as bad). I bought the T.264 because they were advertising it for the AppleTV and that's where it really fails (IMHO).

And as far as my class action comment...totally tongue in cheek. Of course if somebody wants to pursue it..

by **sdesros** » March 24th, 2009, 5:00 am

Nick Freeman wrote:We don't have official comparison charts to share yet, but here is a taste - I ran some quick tests.
<snip!>
We look forward to more detailed comparisons from reviewers and users.

I currently don't have any issues with my Turbo.264 (except for the no-sound bug in EyeTV3.1.1). I mainly work with SD resolution.

Will there be any substantial speed improvements on my first gen 2GHz (Core Duo) iMac on SD resolution? I found that the Turbo.264 (SD?) had only a very small edge over the iMac's rendering speed. (I kept using it since it spared my iMac's CPU for other tasks.

)