On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 05:59:00PM +0100, Ronald Bultje wrote: > Hi Brian,
Hi Ronald, > Not that difficult, I guess... I'm not familiar with the ffmpeg internal > interface, mp1e is from the zapping/rte folks. I don't know if the lineage of that goes back to ffmpeg though. > but it shouldn't be hard. Should have a look at that one day. I wonder how much better the output quality of mp1e can be if it does not have to encode real-time. I could enable motion estimation and other features if it does not have to work in real-time. > Still, it's only MPEG-1... Yes. But my output device is a Matrox G400 TV-Out. I can give it field correct progressive frames and it will show the fields correctly interlaced. I can also tell mp1e to not perform any de-interlacing algorithms when encoding two fields interlaced into a progressive frame. I don't know what all MPEG2 adds to MPEG1, but I am aware that MPEG2 can encode interlaced field data correctly, which is why I prefer MPEG2. But the cost of mpeg2enc is just too high. Are there any other reasons (given my output device) that I should prefer MPEG2? b. -- Brian J. Murrell
msg00167/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
