On 11/4/2019 8:22 AM, Morten W. Petersen wrote:
You are unable to understand what I ask for, and send an email 2 minutes
after I replied to Nicholas who gave a similar answer, when his lack of
intelligence or good behaviour turned annoying.

a) email is not synchronous and replies overlap.

b) we are "unable to understand" because you haven't stated a question that can be answered- you kind of asked the question "how can I make my car go faster" without even telling us the make/model of the car.

I have gotten 1 good answer, 2 bad ones, and 1 case of annoying behaviour
so far.

Welcome to the ffmpeg-user mailing list; the technical content is usually quite good, the wording can be a bit rough.

And you've already been asked not to "top-post" on this list; continuing to do that suggests that you're not interested in actually engaging with the list.

(in a top-posted reply)
On 11/4/2019 8:36 AM, Morten W. Petersen wrote:
> Let me ask in a different way, how can I encode a video to the smallest
> possible size, while still discerning some movement?

set the resolution to 1x1 and the frame rate to 1 per second; that'll be a really small file but completely useless. What's the minimum resolution you can tolerate? What's the minimum frame-rate that won't lose information. Maybe you need to only save the parts with detectable motion and discard the rest.

ffmpeg-user mailing list

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Reply via email to