>I do hope you weren't offended that I said it was
>slow :-)
Heh, no problem -- after all, y4mdenoise is a lot
slower than I wanted it to be. But outside of
writing a multi-processor version, I'm currently
not sure what else I can do to speed it up.
Until I know, I have to expend political capital
to defend my code. :-)
>The chain that I've got right now takes around 18
>hours to encode a 2-hour video (using an Athlon
>XP 2600). yuvdenoise is generally a large part
>of that (let's say 7 hours of it), so using
>y4mdenoise makes it a 2-day encoding job rather
>than < 1 day and I really couldn't tell too much
>difference with the naked eye between yuvdenoise
>and y4mdenoise, at least not enough to justify
>the difference in performance at this time.
Totally understandable. y4mdenoise was intended to
clean up my precious antique videotape collection,
where I *am* willing to wait 2-4 days to process a
single tape on my Athlon XP 1800+.
Steven Boswell
ulatekh at yahoo dot com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
Mjpeg-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
