Hi all,
> I think James' mail item came in first with what looks like
> the rate control bug. You might have to settle for '2nd bug' ;)
>
> > what does the above mean and is it a bad thing? I get it with
It means I somehow managed to merge in a warning message for the 'new' (now
discarded) controller into the old controller. How I haven't the faintest
idea. I've now check in a version with zero diffs to revision I wanted (1.12)
of ratectl.cc.
> I think it is 1) a bad thing and 2) the rate control issue that was
> "fixed" a couple days ago - or at least very similar to that bug.
I think it was probably just a 'bad noise' but with rate control its hard to
be sure as all kinds of knock-on effects occur. A look-ahead bit allocator
(next job packet) should allow a much cleaner robuster and better bit
allocation.
Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
