On Wednesday 01 January 2003 07:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 06:20:44PM -0800, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > At the difference in space usage, disk. I have a 5:27s clip here > > > that I was testing with. It is 720x480, default lavrec jpeg quality > > > (50% I think it is isn't it?). It is 917MB in size. I converted it > > > > Try lowering the resolution > > I'd really rather not reduce the resolution. You lose half of the temporal > information doing that.
Yep. Or, not necessarily. The way I lower the resolution, I just lower the horizontal resolution, not the vertical, and therefore I don't lose any temporal information. (The _real_ reason is that I immediately can spot that the vertical resolution is halved, but I can't see that the horizontal resolution is halved. Most of the time, I capture movies, and wouldn't lose any temporal info anyway.) -d 21 (half horizontal, full vertical) does the trick, while more or less halving the disk space requirements. It might be more visible on your equipment, though TVs tend to be really fuzzy in general. /Sam ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mjpeg-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mjpeg-users
