Andrew Church wrote: > >BTW, I notice that memory allocation at startup for the transcode process > >is about 3x the size of 1.0.2 for the cvs branch... And suspiciously > >close to 2x the size of the input .avi file. 300mb vs 100mb. Now, I > >realise this could be coming from any number of places, but I wonder if > >something isn't reading the whole input file into memory at startup? > > The maximum video buffer size was increased from 1920x1088 to > 2500x2500, and 2500*2500*3 is roughly thrice 1920*1088*3. That's > probably where the size difference comes from. (It would be much > cleverer of transcode to allocate only as much space as was actually > needed for processing, but there's currently no way to propogate size > changes through the processing pipeline, so that'll have to wait for a > future version.)
Ah, okay. I wouldn't say it's a problem, as long as it's getting allocated intentionally.
