Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-26 Thread Bernhard Praschinger
Hallo > I also noticed that using either -f8 or -f9 that something wasn't quite right with > some sort of timestamps. I did a 'mplayer test.m2v -ss 15:00' for example and that > really took me about 45 minutes into the movie (maybe a little further). This > worked when I encoded using the old

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-26 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Ray Cole wrote: > It went from 6 hours encoding a 2 hour movie to 24 hours (total time > includes filters, which I did not change filters between tests). > top shows mpeg2enc using 99% of the CPU (which I would expect). I > don't see any dip in CPU usage so I don't believe

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-26 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Ray Cole wrote: > Here's the command line I used on the old one vs the new: > > Old Command: > nice mpeg2enc -f 8 -b ${aRate} -V 230 -n n -s -a 2 -g 6 -G 18 -I 0 \ >-r 24 -4 2 -2 2 -F 1 -p -v 0 -o ${aName}.m2v > > New Command: > nice mpeg2enc -f 9 -b ${aRate}

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-26 Thread Ray Cole
It went from 6 hours encoding a 2 hour movie to 24 hours (total time includes filters, which I did not change filters between tests). top shows mpeg2enc using 99% of the CPU (which I would expect). I don't see any dip in CPU usage so I don't believe I'm seeing a stall but am willing to try. -

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-25 Thread Bernhard Praschinger
Hallo > Guess that would help :-) mpeg2enc is what is running slower. > > Here's the command line I used on the old one vs the new: > > Old Command: > nice mpeg2enc -f 8 -b ${aRate} -V 230 -n n -s -a 2 -g 6 -G 18 -I 0 \ >-r 24 -4 2 -2 2 -F 1 -p -v 0 -o ${aName}.m2v > > New Comman

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-25 Thread Ray Cole
Guess that would help :-) mpeg2enc is what is running slower. Here's the command line I used on the old one vs the new: Old Command: nice mpeg2enc -f 8 -b ${aRate} -V 230 -n n -s -a 2 -g 6 -G 18 -I 0 \ -r 24 -4 2 -2 2 -F 1 -p -v 0 -o ${aName}.m2v New Command: nice mpeg2enc -f 9 -b

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-25 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Ray Cole wrote: > I downloaded the source and built it. It seems to run about 4x slower > than 1.6.1. Any ideas? Get a new watch? ;-)With out some numbers I find it very difficult to believe "4x slower". For full sized DVD frames around 5 t

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1(1.6.1.90)

2003-08-25 Thread Ronald Bultje
Hey Ray, On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 16:22, Ray Cole wrote: > I downloaded the source and built it. It seems to run about 4x slower than 1.6.1. > Any ideas? What runs 4 times slower? Recording? MPEG encoding? Transcoding? Compiling? Ronald -- Ronald Bultje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

Re: Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-25 Thread Ray Cole
I downloaded the source and built it. It seems to run about 4x slower than 1.6.1. Any ideas? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux

Fw: [Mjpeg-users] Mjpegtools 1.6.2 release candidate 1 (1.6.1.90)

2003-08-23 Thread Nicolas Boos
Hello again ! Depuis le temps qu'elle était promis cette nouvelle version ! :-) A+ Nicolas --- Begin Message --- Hey all, I've put up RPMs+tarball for mjpegtools-1.6.2 release candidate 1 (versioned as 1.6.1.90, because that makes packaging easier) on sourceforge. This is a feature enh