On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I do not think 1.6.1.92 is that old. If I am not wronk, it has been
> released by the end of November.
Maybe it just _feels_ old ;) Seems that the next release candidate
has been "real soon now" for a long time.
> spead things up. I have been using them. I have also been using
> the "-E n" with n being a value between -15 and -4, in order
> to get smaller files. Do you think this is a good idea?
Definitely a good idea. Values in the -10 range are quite
conservative (I tend to use either -8 or -10).
> It seems that the small (in absolute value) values for n
> dos not affect the quality that much.
Very true - the visual quality is not reduced but the size of the
file is smaller (sometimes considerably smaller).
> What does change in CVD compared to SVCD encoding? Only the frame size?
The only thing that changes is the encoded frame size. SVCDs
use a coded frame size of 480x480 which is expanded on playback
to 640x480 (4/3) or 854x480 (16/9) (and yes, 16/9 is valid for SVCDs
but the hardware players I've tried do not know about it).
CVDs are encoded at 352x480 (which is also a valid DVD size) and
get expanded to 640x480 or 854x480 on playback.
> a frame size of 672x504. Then I resize it to 480x480 and set the
> aspect ratio to 4:3. What would be the procedure for a CVD target
> in this example?
If you're using 'y4mscaler' to do the scaling then all you need to
do is change the "-O preset=SVCD" to "-O preset=CVD" and it will
perform the necessary magic for you.
Cheers,
Steven Schultz
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
