On 01/31/2016 02:43 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
the space savings are significant, heres a 10second video to show this
Of course they are significant (8 times less), but they are quite
irrelevant nowadays with the amounts of memory we have today, as I have
stated in the description of the
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Mats Peterson wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 11:31 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:34:46AM +0100, Mats Peterson wrote:
> >>On 01/30/2016 05:10 AM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> >>>Now when both AVI and QuickTime use pal8 for 1 bpp video, there
On 01/31/2016 01:10 PM, wm4 wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:35:20 +0100
Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:31 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:28 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:27 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:25 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:19
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:35:20 +0100
Mats Peterson wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 12:31 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> > On 01/31/2016 12:28 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> >> On 01/31/2016 12:27 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> >>> On 01/31/2016 12:25 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 12:19 PM, Mats Pe
On 01/31/2016 12:28 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:27 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:25 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:19 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
I've obviously missed that one, Michael, but I don't see the reason to
switch to monow whatsoever. The space savin
On 01/31/2016 12:31 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:28 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:27 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:25 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:19 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
I've obviously missed that one, Michael, but I don't see the reason
On 01/31/2016 12:27 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:25 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:19 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
I've obviously missed that one, Michael, but I don't see the reason to
switch to monow whatsoever. The space saving of using monow rather than
pal8 for 1 bpp da
On 01/31/2016 12:19 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
I've obviously missed that one, Michael, but I don't see the reason to
switch to monow whatsoever. The space saving of using monow rather than
pal8 for 1 bpp data is rather irrelevant nowadays. Your mileage may
vary, of course. And in order to be conse
On 01/31/2016 12:25 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/31/2016 12:19 PM, Mats Peterson wrote:
I've obviously missed that one, Michael, but I don't see the reason to
switch to monow whatsoever. The space saving of using monow rather than
pal8 for 1 bpp data is rather irrelevant nowadays. Your mileage
On 01/31/2016 11:31 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:34:46AM +0100, Mats Peterson wrote:
On 01/30/2016 05:10 AM, Mats Peterson wrote:
Now when both AVI and QuickTime use pal8 for 1 bpp video, there's no
need to keep the monow stuff.
I should add that I'm only removing
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 01:34:46AM +0100, Mats Peterson wrote:
> On 01/30/2016 05:10 AM, Mats Peterson wrote:
> >Now when both AVI and QuickTime use pal8 for 1 bpp video, there's no
> >need to keep the monow stuff.
> >
> I should add that I'm only removing stuff that I've added myself
> before, so
On 01/30/2016 05:10 AM, Mats Peterson wrote:
Now when both AVI and QuickTime use pal8 for 1 bpp video, there's no
need to keep the monow stuff.
I should add that I'm only removing stuff that I've added myself before,
so don't worry.
Mats
___
ffmpeg
Now when both AVI and QuickTime use pal8 for 1 bpp video, there's no
need to keep the monow stuff.
Mats
--
Mats Peterson
http://matsp888.no-ip.org/~mats/
>From 7a6627e283392703a1f90d680cc87761afa452e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mats Peterson
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:05:03 +0100
Subject: [
13 matches
Mail list logo
