Re: Malloc failed, Was: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-26 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote: Hi! > > In utils/cpu_accel.c you should see the function bufalloc() which > > is where the malloc error is coming from. The only thing I can > > think of to try is add a "fprintf(stderr, "size = %d\n", size);" > I did it. The request size

Re: Malloc failed, Was: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-26 Thread Michael Hanke
Hi, On Monday 24 November 2003 18.16, you wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote: > > Thanks a lot for all of your help. I had to upgrade libtool and autoconf. > > Then the build went smoothly. But when I tried yuvdenoise, I got an > > memory > In utils/cpu_accel.c you should see

Fwd: Malloc failed, Was: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-24 Thread Michael Hanke
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Malloc failed, Was: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:32:35 +0100 From: Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Steven M. Schultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tuesday 18 November 2003

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-17 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote: > > Try it again but instead of giving up post the results and we'll > > see what we can do to help. You'll need the various development > This is very kind of you. The system is a SuSE 7.2 with security updates from You're welcome.

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-17 Thread Michael Hanke
On Thursday 13 November 2003 08.23, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23.30, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > > > "cvs update" is your friend > > > > Mmmh... That's what I tried to do. But autoconf/automake (invoked by > > autogen) fai

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-13 Thread John Ribera
PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance > > On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote: > > > What is _your_ source? > > Which one? ;) > > The author of mpeg2enc is

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-13 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote: > On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23.30, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > > > > "cvs update" is your friend > > > Mmmh... That's what I tried to do. But autoconf/automake (invoked by autogen) > failed with many undefined macros/errors etc. So I gave up.

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-13 Thread Michael Hanke
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23.30, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > > "cvs update" is your friend > Mmmh... That's what I tried to do. But autoconf/automake (invoked by autogen) failed with many undefined macros/errors etc. So I gave up. Michael

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-12 Thread Steven M. Schultz
Hi - On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, John Ribera wrote: > Did I just hear elimination of B frames: Not exactly ;) They are optional now though so you can choose if you want/need them or not. > 1) lowers bitrate, ie file size In some cases - mostly with noisy sourc

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote: > What is _your_ source? Which one? ;) The author of mpeg2enc is one. Another can be found in one of the links from http://www.mir.com/DMG/, go to the MPEG FAQ and read http://tns-www.lcs.mit.edu/manuals/mpeg2/FAQ

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread scholnik
> If people think that yuvdenoise and mpeg2enc are "more than ready" for a > stable release, I'll package a 1.6.1.91... Else, I'll wait a few days > longer. ;). > > Ronald There was a problem reported a while back with post-1.6.1 yuvdenoise (that is, after my 4:1:1 patches) producing some visual

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Florin Andrei
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:07, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote: > > > So, essentially you're saying that MPEG2 without B-frames is perfectly > > legal from the DVD standards p.o.v., right? > > They are, and always have been, optional. Nothing says that B >

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Florin Andrei
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:53, Alexei Dets wrote: > > Can we expect a stable _release_ version anytime soon? Or at least a 1.6.1.91 type of thing... ;-) When CVS seems healthy enough for a partial release. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ --

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Ronald Bultje wrote: > If people think that yuvdenoise and mpeg2enc are "more than ready" for a > stable release, I'll package a 1.6.1.91... Else, I'll wait a few days > longer. ;). yuvdenoise was a problem this past weekend on OS/X - but it is working now af

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Ronald Bultje
Hi, On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 22:53, Alexei Dets wrote: > Can we expect a stable _release_ version anytime soon? Current CVS mjpegtools > are FAR better than 1.6.1 but it is impossible to get it in the packaged form > - all distributions are packaging the latest release... :-((( Wink noted again. I

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Alexei Dets wrote: > Yes, lots of new features... And a couple bugs ;) > Can we expect a stable _release_ version anytime soon? Current CVS mjpegtools Not at the moment, there are a couple issues (boundary cases that most folks would not notice) tha

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Alexei Dets
Hi! On Tuesday 11 November 2003 17:10, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > Main feature that 1.6.1.90 brought to the party was the -K option > and libquicktime (instead of the old/incompatible quicktime4linux) > support. Since then quite a few improvements have been made. Yes, lots of n

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote: > So, essentially you're saying that MPEG2 without B-frames is perfectly > legal from the DVD standards p.o.v., right? They are, and always have been, optional. Nothing says that B frames _must_ be used. In many cases they are a win but wit

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote: > On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 06:14, Andrew Stevens wrote: > > > -f 8 -E -10 -q 6 -R 0 -I 0 -K tmpgenc > > Hmmm... I'm using 1.6.1.90 and i cannot find some options (-E, -10, -R) > in the man page nor in the --help output. > > Are you using a recent CVS or someth

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Florin Andrei
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 06:14, Andrew Stevens wrote: > -f 8 -E -10 -q 6 -R 0 -I 0 -K tmpgenc Hmmm... I'm using 1.6.1.90 and i cannot find some options (-E, -10, -R) in the man page nor in the --help output. Are you using a recent CVS or something? -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ ---

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-11 Thread Florin Andrei
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 09:14, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > If you do that (and it has almost always improved the compression for > me - sometimes quite substantially) then you may encounter playback > difficulties with Ogle - seems they don't handle the dual prime > motion esti

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-03 Thread Ronald Bultje
Hi Andrew, On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 18:49, Andrew Stevens wrote: > Ronald: I don't think a gstreamer wrapper for libmpeg2encpp will be too hard. > However, I worry about the fact that I need to link all the C++ library > routines. Are there any existing C++ based plugin's? Lots. Modplug, matrosk

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-03 Thread Trent Piepho
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Andrew Stevens wrote: > > Hmmm, without the -I 0 I only get about 15 Frame/sec on my Athlon > > 2800. Does -I 0 make that big of a difference? > > -I 0 really does make that big a difference. If you know you don't have > interlaced material then you should always us

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-03 Thread Andrew Stevens
Hi Steven, Lying around useless with the 'flu today but I have spent the time learning more about PIC code and shared libs Basically, I think if all the relevant libs are compiled for shared library usage we should be in business. I've modified the nasm sources so all the assmbler routines

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-03 Thread Steven M. Schultz
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Andrew Stevens wrote: > Well... its got a little way to go before its professional quality... It's getting closer every week/month though ;) > So, to compare like with like you have to compare default mpeg2enc and MPEG-4 > encoder encoding full CCITT 720x pictures w

Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-03 Thread Andrew Stevens
Hi Laurent, > I might be wrong as I don't have an in-depth knowledge of MPEG2 and MPEG4 > compression, but it seems to me that MPEG4 compression is more time > consumming than MPEG2. > > I know that mpeg2enc is a professional-quality tool that can give extremely > good quality MPEG2 streams. Well

[Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance

2003-11-02 Thread Laurent Pinchart
Hi everybody, This is not the first mail about MPEG2 encoding performance, and probably not the last one either. I'm comparing here the encoding performances of ffmpeg (MPEG4) and mpeg2enc. On a PIII-800, the former encodes in real time while the later encodes at around 3fps. I might be wrong