--- Ray Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I originally built
> from CVS wanting to try y4mdenoise, but it is just
> too slow for me to use.
yuvdenoise and y4mdenoise, completely separate from
algorithmic differences, have one very important
difference right off the bat. yuvdenoise analyzes the
ne
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Trent Piepho wrote:
> Yep, and if you divided 640 pixels by 12 3/11 MHz you get 52.15 microseconds,
> the same things you get if you divide 704 pixels by 13.5 MHz.
We could play Oujia board games with the numbers all day long but at
the end of that day the fac
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> > bt848 datasheet. 52.15 is used by VCDs, DVDs in 704x480 mode, and 640x480
> > square pixel captures.
>
> Hmmm, for square pixel sampling the frequency is not 13.5MHz - it's
> 12.2727 (actually 12 + 3/11) MHz.
Yep, and if you divided 6
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Trent Piepho wrote:
> See this, http://www.arachnotron.nl/videocap/site/capture_area2.html
Ah yes - forgot about that, been a while since I visited that site.
> bt848 datasheet. 52.15 is used by VCDs, DVDs in 704x480 mode, and 640x480
> square pixel capture
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Ray Cole wrote:
>
> a single frame in probably > 200 hours of recording). I tell it to capture
> at 720x480 and I haven't noticed any distortion. Should I really be
> capturing at 704x480 instead? I don't do any scaling beyond the capture
> phase and it all looks fine to me
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Ray Cole wrote:
> So looks like I'm OK staying with a capture of 720x480.
If you don't mind getting 16 pixels that aren't part of the signal. ;)
720x480 does not represent a 4/3 image.
Interesting reading can be found at
http://www.mir.co
Looks like nuppelrec is probably handling it correctly. If I record at 720,
704, or 640x480 the image turns out measuring the same every time. My recent
post saying there was a difference is because I'm testing it by recording a
football game on ESPN. They periodically put a bar at the bottom
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Ray Cole wrote:
> I tried recording at 704x480 and 720x480, and you are correct that if I put
> a piece of paper to measure the size of some objects there is a measurable
> difference. So I suppose I'll start using 704x480 :-) Not that
The thing to try is find s
Hi -
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Ray Cole wrote:
Possible to hit the key once in a while? :-)
> > Hmmm, the 'yuvycsnoise' filter could probably be dropped - even when I
>
> I noticed a big difference in quality with my Bt878 card, particularly with
> credits and other white text that app
I tried recording at 704x480 and 720x480, and you are correct that if I put a
piece of paper to measure the size of some objects there is a measurable
difference. So I suppose I'll start using 704x480 :-) Not that I'll re-record
all the stuff I've recorded before since 2% is really hard to see
Do a cvs update and rebuild now - changes since last week might get
a (tiny) fraction more quality ;)
I did that last night, but haven't done any serious encoding yet.
Hmmm, the 'yuvycsnoise' filter could probably be dropped - even when I
was using a Bt878 card that
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Ray Cole wrote:
Hi!
> I've encoded several things since successfully compiling from CVS last week
> and it seems to me the quality has noticeably improved. I originally built
Do a cvs update and rebuild now - changes since last week might get
a (tiny) fra
I've encoded several things since successfully compiling from CVS last week and it seems to me
the quality has noticeably improved. I originally built from CVS wanting to try y4mdenoise, but
it is just too slow for me to use. However I do use y4mspatialfilter right before yuvdenoise, so
my cha
13 matches
Mail list logo
