On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 19:20, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Hi Steven, > Hmmm, I take a different approach and build the system up > from a bare distribution - i.e. don't trust the distribution's > (out of date) tools. I just don't have the time to do that kind of system maintenance -- keeping packages up to date, rebuilding all that. > Most of the video tools are in > development so I'd want the current versions anyhow ;) True enough. > OpenDML. libquicktime, at least the cvs version - I haven't checked > on the last release tarball they made - has >2GB support in it > (at least that's what the code I was reading this morning says). Yeah, I have been using libquicktime (9.2 and currently 9.2pre1) in the recent past but my most recent O/S upgrade and video tools rebuild saga has proven out that this is just too much work. There seems to be some condition in the latest libquicktime in which it's writing files itself cannot read back. I haven't really dove into solve it, but the bottom line is that I don't have time or desire to. I have way too much else on my plate to be debugging mjpegtools/libquicktime problems. > I can believe that - 80GB just doesn't last as long as it used to > <grin> > > But with 200GB drives being $119 I stopped buying 80s ;) Yeah, I wish. When I only have $15/month left over after paying all the bills, even a 40MB drive is a luxury I can't afford currently. > What type of capture hardware are you using? A DV method or > a WinTV card, or a MJPEG card? MJPEG from a G400 Marvel. > For the most part I haven't found MPEG4 to be better at the larger > frame (704x480) frame sizes. Than MJPEG? I can compress 5G/hour of MJPEG down to about 800MB/h of MPEG4 and maintain a very respectable quality (certainly better than VHS!) > MPEG4 works great for creating > thumbnail'd (320x240) movies that can be sent (or uploaded) to > folks but as the image size increases so does the bitrate required > and things end up being almost the same size as MPEG2 using the > recent features from mpeg2enc. Right. mpeg2enc is out of the question. Far too slow on my 800MHz Athlon. > Hmmm, I've gotten up around 14 frames/sec with mpeg2enc on > full NTSC (720x480) frames. I have never gotten more than about 5fps on 352x480 frames on my Athlon 800. > Not real time but not all that > slow either. I would take 14fps. Mencoder with some denoising gives me about that. As hight as 18 or so if I am doing an inverse telecine and cropping to the NTSC letterbox standard. > But it can read from stdin can't it? Piping into mencoder should > work ok. Yes, but from what? I just did an avimerge and noticed it does a whole boat-load of seeking in the file after it's finished merging them. > Ok - but remember, you did ask :-) I did. > > One word: DV > > Second words: Canopus ADVC100 I shoulda also mentioned in my requirements list that I have no budget for new hardware. If I did I would just be done with all this and buy a PVR-250. > Good Luck! Thanx. :-) b. -- My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server. Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
