>This works and is obviously a lot simpler than the long list of -c
>values I'm using right now, but the speed is actually slower -- around
>173 fps vs 205 fps when I use the -c flag.
>It's also not as precise -- I get 418 images per hour instead of 360 as
>I should -- and do with the -c flag.
That's certainly unusual. If you can install CVS HEAD, can you see whether
it gives you the same behavior? Another thing to try is to run transcode
both ways (with --frame_interval and with the -c list) and see where the
two sets of images diverge; it could be a constant, small slip, or there
could be some point in the video where transcode gets confused and skips
the wrong number of frames.
As far as the speed goes, it may be that --frame_interval causes the frames
to be decoded even though they're going to be dropped. I don't think the
skipping code has received much attention, so there are probably things
that could be optimized in that code path.
Thanks for the suggestion; I'll put it on my list of things to do (when
I have time--sigh).
--Andrew Church
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://achurch.org/
