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
The final result was a smooth flowing image (on my DVD player) with a
bit less quality than the original - it's a bit blotchy in certain
scenes. The original Dolby Digital (2 channel) sound was preserved.
There the -q option might help.
If it is just certain scenes then you need to boost
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 04:00, Lance F. Squire wrote:
I would prefer something Linux would 'find' instead of having to point
to it.
[..]
I would like something that also included a SCSI controller. For a one
piece replacement.
You are weird... ;). The Buz really is one of the few cards that
Am Dienstag, 13. Januar 2004 22:09 schrieb Andrew Stevens:
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
On Monday 12 January 2004 14:44, Dragon_at_work wrote:
How would I join multiple m1v and mp2 files in a way that would later lend
itself to mplexing them.
I tried cat. And it seemed to work for both types.
But, mplex was unable to join them properly --ie the video worked, but the
audio did
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Al Bogner wrote:
So, if size doesn't matter is it _always_ better to use tmpgenc, also
with _bad_ sources?
Well, if size doesn't matter you can use '-K hi-res' :-)
What I use for high quality encoding is a custom table made up of
the hi-res Intra
