On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Christian Ebert wrote:
> Ok, let me try to be more specific. The case I had in mind was to
> how to put DV footage (shot and edited by yours truly) on DVD.
Ok - so it's not going thru an analog conversion and does not have
analog noise to worry about.
But when some people say 'quality' they have a mental image of
their home videos looking like a "Hollywood movie mastered from
restored master film"...
> b) AFAICS the only constraint I have is the bitrate as I have to
> compress to MJPEG-2.
Correct - and that is a firm limit.
> So I don't mind waisting bits even for "unseen quality" (to quote
You should mind wasting bits. Remember, (b) above, that you only
have a fixed and limited number of bits/sec available. Bits spent
on unseen/invisible detail are wasted and NOT available for detail/
"quality" that you CAN see.
> your other mail), I just want to lose as little quality as
> possible when I compress.
Ok. Question: how will wasting bits on things you can NOT see improve
the quality that you CAN see? ;)
> As my source has much higher quality, if I understand you
> correctly, it would not make sense to apply the -H option because
> of the bitrate constraint for DVD.
Correct. If you are bit rate constrained (at the limit imposed by
either the DVD max _or_ the length of video that must fit on a disc)
then using -H is not a good idea. Requesting "high resolution"
means using more bits, but if those bits are not available then the
quality must be lowered.
Happy Encoding!
Cheers,
Steven Schultz
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Mjpeg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
