HI!
Where can I found the release notes for new versions of mjpegtools (I
did not find anything up to date in the source archive)? With 1.6.1.92,
timestamp in NTSC movies was wrong. This seems to be fixed in .93, but I
was wondering.
With .93 and transcode, I got some warnings during encoding
For those of you using this document (the DV-to-DVD-HOWTO)...
http://zebra.fh-weingarten.de/~transcode/docs/DV-to-DVD-HOWTO.txt
...if you follow the method described in it, which, essentially, is
based on dvdauthor's "One chapter, one source" template...
http://dvdauthor.sourceforge.net/doc/ex-t
Hello.
I am in doubt about what aspect ratio to use
when encoding SVCDs from a widescreen source.
For instance, today I have encoded a movie from
an AVI source with frame size 800x344 to SVCD
with both aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9. For the
16:9 aspect ratio the needed black border at
the top and th
Hi Bernhard,
> > It's the precision of the DC component. Most commercial DVDs
> > use -D 10 but mpeg2enc defaults to 9 to save a few bits. A
> > value of 11 is only valid at the next MPEG-2 profile/level so it's not a
> > currently meaningful value to use.
>
> Just added it to
Hi all,
> I think James' mail item came in first with what looks like
> the rate control bug. You might have to settle for '2nd bug' ;)
>
> > what does the above mean and is it a bad thing? I get it with
It means I somehow managed to merge in a warning message for the 'new' (now
di
On Monday 19 January 2004 08:10, Thomas Börkel wrote:
> HI!
>
> Where can I found the release notes for new versions of mjpegtools (I
> did not find anything up to date in the source archive)?
Yes, they need updating!
> With 1.6.1.92,
> timestamp in NTSC movies was wrong. This seems to be fixed
Hi!
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrew Stevens wrote:
> > > It's the precision of the DC component. Most commercial DVDs
> > > use -D 10 but mpeg2enc defaults to 9 to save a few bits. A
> > > value of 11 is only valid at the next MPEG-2 profile/level so it's not a
> > > currently mea
Hi!
> Am I right expecting better quality results
> with a 16:9 aspect ratio in the SVCD?
Yes, except the fact that many DVD players doesn't correctly play 16:9
SVCDs :-(
Alexei
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Pr
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am in doubt about what aspect ratio to use
> when encoding SVCDs from a widescreen source.
4/3
> giving a better quality. When playing the
> SVCD at a normal TV (aspect ratio 4:3), the
> DVD player will add black borders to fit
> the imag
HI!
Andrew Stevens wrote:
With 1.6.1.92,
timestamp in NTSC movies was wrong. This seems to be fixed in .93, but I
was wondering.
Do you really mean timestamp? There was a rate control issue in .92
Maybe it was that. Other tools showed the wrong length of the encoded movie.
With .93 and trans
Hi!
On Monday 19 January 2004 5:14 pm, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> As Alexei mentioned (and I have observed the same thing) many DVD/VCD
> players do NOT perform the letterboxing function for SVCD/VCD. In
> fact I have yet to encounter a DVD player that will pay attention to
>
Just an FYI...
I ended up with a good quality DVD using the following encoding
sequence:
yuvdenoise -F
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Ecli
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:20:08PM -0400, Alexei Dets wrote:
> Hi!
> On Monday 19 January 2004 5:14 pm, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> > As Alexei mentioned (and I have observed the same thing) many DVD/VCD
> > players do NOT perform the letterboxing function for SVCD/VCD. In
> > fact I
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:14:50PM -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I am in doubt about what aspect ratio to use
> > when encoding SVCDs from a widescreen source.
>
> 4/3
>
> > giving a better quality. When playing the
> > SVCD at a norm
> That is what I thought. When encoding a widescreen movie with aspect ratio
> 16:9, black borders are not needed to expand the video frame, as is needed
> when encoding to a 4:3 aspect ratio. The aspect ratio will be preserved.
> Therefore all the bits in the encoded video are used in the origina
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you only watch the movie on a 4:3 TV, then it is both a waste of
> bits and a reduction in quality to encode the widescreen (anamorphic)
> version. Most (all? certainly the cheap ones) DVD players convert
> 16:9 material to 4:3 material by dropping
> Some 4:3 TVs however, have a 16:9 enhanced mode. In this mode, they take the
> full vertical resolution signal and squish the scan lines into a 16:9
> letterbox area. This will give you more quality than throwing away the
> resolution before you encode.
Do such TVs have enough vertical pixels
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Some 4:3 TVs however, have a 16:9 enhanced mode. In this mode, they take the
> > full vertical resolution signal and squish the scan lines into a 16:9
> > letterbox area. This will give you more quality than throwing away the
> > resolution before
18 matches
Mail list logo