On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:04:50AM +0530, arwa arif wrote: > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 03:53:55PM +0530, arwa arif wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 02:30:29PM +0530, arwa arif wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Stefano Sabatini < > > stefa...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On date Thursday 2015-01-29 03:46:42 +0530, Arwa Arif encoded: > > > > > > > I have updated the page with new images. > > > > > > > http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Postprocessing > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: probably you can improve the page layout by stripping the > > black > > > > > > top and bottom bands in the matrix reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you exactly created the query image? Also please specify the > > > > > > information unit (200K = 200 Kbit/s, right?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I used this command to create the query image: > > > > > ffmpeg -i matrixbench_mpeg2.mpg -b:v 200k matrixbench_mpeg2-lq.mpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What exactly needs to be done in benchmark section? > > > > > > > > > > > > I already suggested a command (please keep some context when > > > > > > replying), but Michael observed that the actual benchmark could be > > > > > > affected by I/O speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if there is a better way to benchmark the performance of a > > > > > > single filter. Using START/STOP_TIMER can be an idea but it would > > be > > > > > > probably a little awkward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, which method should I follow to get the runtime? > > > > > > > > Either would work and as stefano seems to have no preferrance / hasnt > > > > replied i suggest to use the simpler > > > > also the input and output files can be placed in /dev/shm to avoid > > > > IO overhead this limits their size though so the video to test with > > > > cant be huge > > > > > > > > > > > I have updated the page: http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Postprocessing > > > I want to know if I should make a different table for becnhmark? > > > > yes, i think a seperate table would be better > > > > > Updated the documentation.
looks fine, saste might have more comments though thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
