On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 12:54, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > > Then you'll also have seen
I just tuned in in the last couple of days, so I haven't seen much. > that the speed difference isn't as > great has been bandied about at times (well, at least for the > cvs version - RC4's delayed until mplex can get fixed for MPEG1 > muxing) Perhaps with the CVS version that is the case, but historically, I have not been able to get more than 5fps with mpec2enc whereas libavcodec gives me closer to 20fps. > > I know that by default mencoder does produce avi contained files (which > > I am trying with great effort to get the hell away from. However, it > > It is a Pain isn't? Yeah, both dealing with avi and trying to not have to deal with it. What a bag of crap avi is. > > has a switch "-of" which you can set to "mpeg", to get an mpeg container. > > But you don't want a container. You want an ES stream not a PS > stream! Indeed. The difference is only just becoming clear with this thread. I now understand that I want the MPEG stream that would be in the container that mencoders -of mpeg spit's out. I might take a look at the demuxing tool you mentioned in the other message in this thread. > And what did I say about PS vs ES a little bit earlier? :-) :-) Yes, indeed. Until the last few hours, the difference between an MPEG-ES and an MPEG-PS was unclear. > ~20% speed difference for the encoding isn't all that much. Perhaps mpeg2enc has gotten _a_lot_ more efficient recently, but historically, the best I have seen out of mpeg2enc on my hardware is <5fps. > Using the Video/TV-out on a video card? Yes, using DirectFB on a Matrox G400 with it's excellent CRTC2 support. > For that type of use > I would use MPEG-4. Which is what I am using currently, but so far, the only containers I have been able to put that into is avi and ogm, as far as mplayer playing from either of those, it sucks rocks. > For computer playing that's the better/faster > format. OK. > MPEG-2 is for set top boxes. What exactly is your distinction here? A set-top box is a computer. Perhaps your distinction is between hardware and software decoding? > At least that's the guidline > that's been useful for myself. My impressions have always been that for interlaced television output, MPEG2 is the best. > Going to write it to DVD or SVCD perhaps? If not then mencoder > to MPEG4 will do a great job. And other than having to use either an avi or ogm container, I would continue to be happy with it. But both avi and ogm has issues (at least where mplayer is concerned) with files >2G. b. -- My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server. Brian J. Murrell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
