On 2015-10-11 00:51, Joseph L. Casale wrote: >>> [libx264 @ 0x1bc3e80] using cpu capabilities: none! >> >> And you wonder why it's slow. You're on x86-64. You at least have SSE2 >> instructions. Why are you not using them? You have to explicitly >> disable assembly when building x264 to get "none". > > So the quickest test was the static packages linked on the ffmpeg > site, that produced greatly improved results. In your opinion, is > the choice of libx264 most optimal for this type of work or do you > recommend something else?
"Most optimal" depends on what you want to do with the video. If I was encoding some video to store for myself I would be very happy with what x264 produces. If I was going to keep the images anyway, I wouldn't bother with encoding them. > No pixel format specified, yuvj420p for H.264 encoding chosen. > Use -pix_fmt yuv420p for compatibility with outdated media players. You might want to take note of this message. > frame= 2997 fps= 61 q=23.0 Lsize= 19637kB time=00:09:59.00 bitrate= > 268.6kbits/s I'm sorry it isn't actually any faster and I am a little surprised that 320x240 video should be so slow.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
