Re: [Mjpeg-users] svcd bitrate calculations

2003-01-26 Thread Scott Moser
Michael, I haven't been so active in mjpeg tools stuff in the past few months and left my work in an unfinished state. However, I had been working on a more useful version of the 'lav2mpeg' tool. One of the things I wanted to add was a "--fit" option, that would function as follows: -

Re: [Mjpeg-users] archives search

2003-03-14 Thread Scott Moser
Also, append a "site:sourceforge.net" in your search, which will restrict hits to the site specified. non-searchable archives is definitely a pain. Its even hard to believe that they can't be searched. I've complained about this before (and even suggested the above), search the archives to see o

Re: [Mjpeg-users] archives search

2003-03-14 Thread Scott Moser
Well, most of the time I don't like being wrong. but this time I do. Thank you Markus for pointing this out. Scott On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Markus Plail wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Frank Bax wrote: > > > The sourceforge archives appear not to be searchable - are the > > searchable archiv

Re: [Mjpeg-users] lavrec and "at"

2003-06-04 Thread Scott Moser
I once had problems with 'at' versus 'cron'. Cron jobs worked fine, at jobs didn't. Tured out that it was a priority issue. By default 'at' starts jobs with a low priority. Try putting the jobs in a higher que with at -q: (from 'man at') Queues with higher letters run with increased nicen

Re: [Mjpeg-users] lavrec and "at"

2003-06-05 Thread Scott Moser
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dirk wrote: > Should "at" execute the lavrec command with exact the priority as when > you start directly from commandline? See my message earlier, and 'at' man page The answer is 'no'. > > And another thing, I have a 2.4.20 kernel patched with the set from Con > Colivas. Bu

Re: [Mjpeg-users] lavrec and "at"

2003-06-05 Thread Scott Moser
I thought that lavrec made some attempts to 'renice' itself. maybe it needs to be setuid root for that to happen? Scott On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dirk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Scott Moser wrote: > > I once had problems with 'at' versus 'c