HI!
Andrew Stevens wrote:
I was able to confirm it is the default of '-R 0' that was causing poor
quality. If I use '-R 0' on 1.6.1.92 I get the same flood of artifacts
that I get with 1.6.1.93.
at least something broken.I haven't heard any other feedback so it could
a build problem...
Some
-R0 is the one that seems to trigger it. The file size turns out being about 15%
smaller than with '-R 2', but the quality drops really bad.
I'm hoping to put a 1-second or so clip up soon that exhibits the problem.
-- Ray
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:20:14 +0100
> HI!
>
> Ray Cole wrote:
> > I wa
HI!
Ray Cole wrote:
I was able to confirm it is the default of '-R 0' that was causing poor quality. If I use '-R 0' on 1.6.1.92 I get the same flood of artifacts that I get with 1.6.1.93.
I have also some strange artifacts with .93 (although I don't know about
.92). What -R setting should I use
The material is at least not visibly noisy. I only denoise using yuvdenoise in 'fast'
mode to help lower the bitrate just a hair to catch some of the noise that isn't
necessarily visible.
Hmmm...as for a sample, I should be able to get a clip to you over the next day or
two. I no longer have
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Andrew Stevens wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>
> I tried encoding a fairly noisy, interlaced, captured video to simulate a DV
> source.First with and without yuvdenoise (default settings). I found I
> was getting visible block artefacts with yuvdenoise on static image
> component
Hi Ray,
I tried encoding a fairly noisy, interlaced, captured video to simulate a DV
source.First with and without yuvdenoise (default settings). I found I
was getting visible block artefacts with yuvdenoise on static image
components but not with just mpeg2enc.
Looks like it something to
On Saturday 24 January 2004 06:18, Ray Cole wrote:
> I was able to confirm it is the default of '-R 0' that was causing poor
> quality. If I use '-R 0' on 1.6.1.92 I get the same flood of artifacts
> that I get with 1.6.1.93.
>
> -- Ray
Hmmm very odd. Do you have a short Test-sequence you c
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.
I was able to confirm it is the default of '-R 0' that was causing poor quality. If I
use '-R 0' on 1.6.1.92 I get the same flood of artifacts that I get with 1.6.1.93.
-- Ray
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:00:19 -0600
Ray Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some observations that I did make about .93
