Greetings, Thank you for your notes.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Reuben Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, August 29, 2016 5:40:41 AM CDT Mettavihari D wrote: > > We have recently installed clipbucket as a video site > > I find that the compression they use is as below. > > My question is whether those standards are good or they should be > increased > > in quality. > > “Good” is context specific. You can get speed, quality, and low-bitrate, > but > you only get two... which two depends on your use case. > My problem is if I go by these standards now then they may be too low for the market in 2 years and I would have to re-encode 30.000 files by then. > > Not sure why they re-interleave the files. Perhaps it’s a means to also > make > the file “web optimized”, but they could do that directly with ffmpeg. > I would appreciate a hint on how to achieve that with ffmpeg. > > Taking the vertical scan resolution and appending 3 zeros to use as the > bitrate is kinda lame and doesn’t well reflect the rate the bitrate > generally > changes as the frame size increases with the x264 encoder. > Your recommendations are very much appreciated. > > Also, the resolution “480” (at least in the context of broadcasting) > generally > implies an animorphic resolution, which is not what is happening in this > instance. But that’s being nitpicky. > I appreciate a good advice and a ling to possible standards in the world. with best regards Mettavihari _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
