Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Phill Edwards
Haven't seen anyone reply to this yet so I will. Notice he said 'lossless'. The MPEG2-MPEG2 transcoding in SVN is for cutting only, it does not re-encode the frames (except around the cutpoints I believe). So, the space savings from using it are because you get to cut out those 20 minutes

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Robin Gilks
Haven't seen anyone reply to this yet so I will. Notice he said 'lossless'. The MPEG2-MPEG2 transcoding in SVN is for cutting only, it does not re-encode the frames (except around the cutpoints I believe). So, the space savings from using it are because you get to cut out those 20 minutes

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Adam Egger
On 1/12/06, Phill Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't seen anyone reply to this yet so I will. Notice he said 'lossless'. The MPEG2-MPEG2 transcoding in SVN is for cutting only, it does not re-encode the frames (except around the cutpoints I believe). So, the space savings from

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Phill Edwards
-m doesn't mean lossless, it just means Perform MPEG2 to MPEG2 transcode. You can change the transcode settings for this profile to lossless in mythfrontend. So that implies that there is also a lossy MPEG2 to MPEG2 transcode option, right? ___

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Adam Egger
On 1/12/06, Phill Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -m doesn't mean lossless, it just means Perform MPEG2 to MPEG2 transcode. You can change the transcode settings for this profile to lossless in mythfrontend. So that implies that there is also a lossy MPEG2 to MPEG2 transcode option,

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Steve Adeff
On Thursday 12 January 2006 06:17, Adam Egger wrote: On 1/12/06, Phill Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven't seen anyone reply to this yet so I will. Notice he said 'lossless'. The MPEG2-MPEG2 transcoding in SVN is for cutting only, it does not re-encode the frames (except around the

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-12 Thread Phill Edwards
to add to Adam's remarks... you CAN'T do a lossless transcode from a lossy format to a lossy format. it's impossible. you can do what may seem an imperceivable loss in quality, but inherent to lossy formats, any transcoding done will loose quality. If you do any decrease in resolution,

[mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-11 Thread Robin Gilks
Greetings Does Mythtranscode from SVN still support mpeg2 - mpeg4 (xvid) compression or is it mpeg2 - mpeg2 lossless only now. I ask as using the -m switch (which should turn ON lossless) creates a file the same size as without it. I'd expect a larger file with it. I STILL can't find a way of

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-11 Thread Phill Edwards
Does Mythtranscode from SVN still support mpeg2 - mpeg4 (xvid) compression or is it mpeg2 - mpeg2 lossless only now. I ask as using the -m switch (which should turn ON lossless) creates a file the same size as without it. I'd expect a larger file with it. Not an answer but another question,

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-11 Thread Robert Tsai
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:09:38AM +1300, Robin Gilks wrote: Does Mythtranscode from SVN still support mpeg2 - mpeg4 (xvid) compression or is it mpeg2 - mpeg2 lossless only now. I ask as using the -m switch (which should turn ON lossless) creates a file the same size as without it. I'd expect

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-11 Thread Byron Poland
On 1/11/06, Robert Tsai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:09:38AM +1300, Robin Gilks wrote: Does Mythtranscode from SVN still support mpeg2 - mpeg4 (xvid) compression or is it mpeg2 - mpeg2 lossless only now. I ask as using the -m switch (which should turn ON lossless)

Re: [mythtv-users] SVN mythtranscode

2006-01-11 Thread Chris Pinkham
compression or is it mpeg2 - mpeg2 lossless only now. I ask as using the -m switch (which should turn ON lossless) creates a file the same size as without it. I'd expect a larger file with it. Not an answer but another question, I'm afraid. From what you say am I right in thinking that