On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Dik Takken wrote:
> I have done a bit of testing, comparing these two encoding pipelines:
>
> png images -> yuv4mpeg -> mjpeg -> mpeg2
>
> png images -> yuv4mpeg -> mpeg2
>
> The quality produced by the second pipeline is clearly a lot better. The
That is what is expected.
> there should be no visual degradation. I tried compressing one of the
> source png images to high quality jpg with the GIMP, and I could not see
> the difference between the png and jpg version.
Did you use a 4 or 8x zoom in the GIMP? That's when you'll really
see the differences. At the 72 or 100dpi of a monitor images can look
identical, but at the pixel level (where encoders work) the
differences can plainly seen.
> I should try using mplayer to feed the mjpeg file to mpeg2enc and see if
> that yields a better mpeg2 stream. If that works, mpeg2enc could benefit
> from the MPlayer pp filters as well.
Ummm, but mplayer's a _de_coder ;) I guess I'm not seeing how
a decoder's post processing can be put into the _en_coder. Or are
you thinking, perhaps, of having mpeg2enc do the encoding, then decode
the result, run the post processing, and then encode as a 2nd pass?
Cheers,
Steven Schultz
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
