Am Mittwoch, 8. Oktober 2003 22:08 schrieb Maarten De Boer: > > Enlarge the image ;) > > Sure, but on a stupid TV set, resolution seems less of an issue.
resolution == sugnal quality to tv-set plus quality of tv. The horizontal resolution is most depending on signal quality. All at all you might not see the difference between 352x576 and 480x576, what you can see for sure might be the scaling. > > I have not tried it but I have my doubts that ffmpeg, as fast as > > it is, can do DVD sized MPEG-2 encoding in real time. > > But it _is_ faster than mjpegtools, right? In that case, is quality > the penalty? Or player compatibility? quality and a way to get it in compatible mpeg2, since mencoder can't do it. mpeg2 can do that encoding in realtime or it uses requantization for transcoding. My try with a dvb recording without changing resolution (means sth between 508 and 720x576) gave me 40 frames per second @ 1100Mhz, SDRAM/slow hd. The quality was horrible tough ( i tried to reach bitrates as i get with -K kvcd ==1500) > > I'll have to try ffmpeg's MPEG-2 encoding and see how fast it > > actually is but realtime 720x480 or 720x576 I am doubtful > > (realtime VCD MPEG-1 I have seen work on a fast system). As said above. It should be possible. I would be interested in quality for higher bitrates, as it would give me the possibility to add .avi's as vdr recordings really fast ( mencoder => mpeg => transportstream => genindex) and later use my vdr encoding solution. Steffen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
