On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Andrew Stevens wrote: > (RE: Encoder comparisons) > Yes. mpeg2enc is definately sub-optimal in allocating bits based on how > likely it is quantisation will show up. It should get better but I have to > improved the internal "infrastructure" first. I will be borrowing a lot of > useful open-source stuff from the MPEG-4 world - not all of it is really > relevant but some will definately make noticeable improvements.
That's good to hear. I was actually going to suggest that you might look at some of that stuff as an option. Recently I have discovered that encoding to two-pass DivX first, then encoding from that back to DVD format will result in a rather dramatically lower file size and quality that's as good or better than a straight encode. I don't know if it's the two-pass part that's doing it, or the "loss" inherent in using a preencoded source as input, but the results are actually very pleasing. Only trouble is, it makes an already slow process even slower. As for CCE, the most impressive thing there was the speed -- whatever they're doing, they can do a three-pass encode in a third the time it takes mpeg2enc to make a single pass. (Though there might be lots of other reasons for that, since I didn't run their test encode that gave that time on my machine, as I don't have CCE.) -- Robert Kesterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
