On Tuesday 13 January 2004 06:27, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Al Bogner wrote:
> > What do you think makes a better encoding from excellent sources: the
> > kvcd or tmpgenc matrix if the result should have the _same_ filesize.
>
> tmpgenc of course. the kvcd tables were designed to reduce the bitrate
> to allow for longer playing time - once detail/contrast/sharpness is
> lost it can not be recovered by raising the bitrate.
>
> > With kvcd you can use higher bitrates. I have to encode a movie with
>
> Yes, and defeat the purpose of using the kvcd tables in the first
> place ;) Depending on the material you can see the effect of the
> kvcd tables - slight softening or less sharpness at times.
Seconded... the kvcd matrices discard fine detail very aggressively. For good
quality material this is not needed and can make gradations in shadings more
visible than necessary.
> > more than 2 hrs at a bitrate between 4000-4500kbps.
>
> For clean material I'd start with "-q 6 -K tmpgenc -E -10" - that's
> been a good combination of parameters for me.
Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
