Some observations that I did make about .93 (haven't necessarily run all of these same tests on .92, so I have no idea if this is 'different' from .92 or not, but it seems odd to me):
1) Changing from -r 16 to -r 32 produced a larger .m2v file by about 3%. I would have thought it'd be smaller. -r 24 seemed to produce the smallest file compared to -r 8, -r 16 (which is understandable), and -r 32 (say what?) 2) Changing -4 2 to -4 3 produced a smaller file by about 2%, which also seems really strange. I would have thought the file size would have dropped with a lower -2 and -4 value (same happened when I upped -2 - file got smaller...) -- Ray On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:55:03 -0600 Ray Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With the same parameters as 1.6.1.92, I'm seeing terrible quality problems. > > Parameters used: > mpeg2enc -f 8 -q 5 -a 2 -g 6 -G 18 -E -10 -N 1.0 -z t -4 2 -2 2 -r 16 -o file.m2v > > I'm seeing very poor quality on still scenes. Faces are very blotchy. Now I also > use yuvdenoise - I haven't made any determination as to whether it is the newer > mpeg2enc or newer yuvdenoise killing me, but it feels more like an mpeg2enc issue > more than anything else. I also haven't tried using -R 2 - that is certainly a > major difference between 92 and 93. I'll try that as well. Anyone else experienced > a major decline in quality? > > I'll let you know the result of some additional experiments. > > -- Ray ------------------------------------------------------- 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
