Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
> Output of PVR-?50 at 6-8Mb/s is as good as uncompressed. > It is also a good idea to apply slight temporal filter of PVR-?50 if your > singnal is noisy. Hi Alexander, Where do I find this "slight temporal filter of PVR-?50" ? Best regards Niels Dybdahl ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:42:00PM -0400, Alexander Varakin wrote: > As for realtime encoding idea, I've been there and don't want to go back. > Encoding is not all what you want to do while recording, you also want to > deinterlace and apply denoising filter. Denoising and deinterlacing are very > important because they allow much better compression. You need a good Who's doing deinterlace on compress? Does it really do better compression? My understanding is the major tv compression algorithms all have interlaced modes which try to make this work. A good deinterlace also results in a 60fps result, so it has twice the pixel rate, though of course the scanlines are usually identical from one half of a frame pair to the next. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
Output of PVR-?50 at 6-8Mb/s is as good as uncompressed. It is also a good idea to apply slight temporal filter of PVR-?50 if your singnal is noisy. As for realtime encoding idea, I've been there and don't want to go back. Encoding is not all what you want to do while recording, you also want to deinterlace and apply denoising filter. Denoising and deinterlacing are very important because they allow much better compression. You need a good horsepower to do this, at least 2GHz. Such hardware is noisy (or expensive) and consumes about 150W of power, so you have to pay about $10 for electricity bill each month if you run backend 24x7. Also raw capture cards often have issues with audio sync. One more thing: obviously it is not possible to do multipass encoding in real time. On the other hand, PVR-?50 can be run on older hardware (e.g PIII) which consumes only 30W and can be easily made silent. > > > > If you're reencoding already encoded files it's too late. > > To some extent. But I think if you record 720x480 at a high bitrate > (8mbit) on your pvr-250, you can then reduce that to something lesser like > 480x480 mpeg4 without doing too much worse than having done it from the > raw. > ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
> I myself have been trying to properly setup transcoding properly. I > believe I have some acceptable settings now to transcode my mpeg2 > hauppauge based recordings into an mpeg4 type recording, but run into > issues with aspect ratios. The recordings play back fine if I was to > play them back in myth since it corrects for the right aspect ratio it > seems, but if I use mplayer, xine, or windows media player on a windows > box the aspect ratio is missed up. Is there an easy way to correct this? On Windows I use ZoomPlayer instead of Windows Media Player. ZoomPlayer allows you to force the display to a certain aspect ratio. It also starts faster. Niels Dybdahl ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
Brad Templeton wrote: >On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:20:00AM -0400, Donavan Stanley wrote: > > >>On 4/28/05, Alexander Varakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>Quality of PVR-?50 hardware encoder is very poor and it requires very high >>>bit >>>rates for decent quality (about 6Mb/s). >>>Software MPEG2 encoders are much better, in Windows world CCE and TmpGenc are >>>very good(they can also run on Linux with wine). On linux mpeg2enc is also >>>very good. >>>I always reencode using software encoder. >>> >>> >>If you're reencoding already encoded files it's too late. >> >> > >To some extent. But I think if you record 720x480 at a high bitrate (8mbit) >on your pvr-250, you can then reduce that to something lesser like 480x480 >mpeg4 without doing too much worse than having done it from the raw. > >Trying to go to the same resolution or not using a nice high bitrate >for the source would be bad news. If, however, you plan to transcode >immediately, you might as well use a very high bit rate on the source >encoding to remove artifacts from the 1st step, it won't cost you anything >since the file is vanishing pretty soon. > >This could make sense on a machine with not enough cpu to software encode >mp4 in real time (or not wanting to spare the cpu to leave it available for >watching.) > >If you have the cpu to record mp4 in real time I suppose it makes more >sense to get a good raw capture card and do that, but it seems you >might not be able to do things like play HDTV and encode mp4 sdtv at >the same time even on a very fast system. > > > > >___ >mythtv-users mailing list >mythtv-users@mythtv.org >http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > > I myself have been trying to properly setup transcoding properly. I believe I have some acceptable settings now to transcode my mpeg2 hauppauge based recordings into an mpeg4 type recording, but run into issues with aspect ratios. The recordings play back fine if I was to play them back in myth since it corrects for the right aspect ratio it seems, but if I use mplayer, xine, or windows media player on a windows box the aspect ratio is missed up. Is there an easy way to correct this? ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:20:00AM -0400, Donavan Stanley wrote: > On 4/28/05, Alexander Varakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quality of PVR-?50 hardware encoder is very poor and it requires very high > > bit > > rates for decent quality (about 6Mb/s). > > Software MPEG2 encoders are much better, in Windows world CCE and TmpGenc > > are > > very good(they can also run on Linux with wine). On linux mpeg2enc is also > > very good. > > I always reencode using software encoder. > > If you're reencoding already encoded files it's too late. To some extent. But I think if you record 720x480 at a high bitrate (8mbit) on your pvr-250, you can then reduce that to something lesser like 480x480 mpeg4 without doing too much worse than having done it from the raw. Trying to go to the same resolution or not using a nice high bitrate for the source would be bad news. If, however, you plan to transcode immediately, you might as well use a very high bit rate on the source encoding to remove artifacts from the 1st step, it won't cost you anything since the file is vanishing pretty soon. This could make sense on a machine with not enough cpu to software encode mp4 in real time (or not wanting to spare the cpu to leave it available for watching.) If you have the cpu to record mp4 in real time I suppose it makes more sense to get a good raw capture card and do that, but it seems you might not be able to do things like play HDTV and encode mp4 sdtv at the same time even on a very fast system. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On 4/28/05, Alexander Varakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quality of PVR-?50 hardware encoder is very poor and it requires very high bit > rates for decent quality (about 6Mb/s). > Software MPEG2 encoders are much better, in Windows world CCE and TmpGenc are > very good(they can also run on Linux with wine). On linux mpeg2enc is also > very good. > I always reencode using software encoder. If you're reencoding already encoded files it's too late. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
Quality of PVR-?50 hardware encoder is very poor and it requires very high bit rates for decent quality (about 6Mb/s). Software MPEG2 encoders are much better, in Windows world CCE and TmpGenc are very good(they can also run on Linux with wine). On linux mpeg2enc is also very good. I always reencode using software encoder. If I need DVD compatibility, I use mpeg2enc and result is about 600M for 45 min show, resolution 720x480. If I don't care about DVD compatibility then I encode into xvid : about 300M for 45 min, resolution 640x480. On Thursday 28 April 2005 11:16, Neil Bird wrote: > Around about 28/04/05 15:54, Jason McLeod typed ... > > > How low of a resolution is too low? > > How low of a bitrate for the video is too low? > >Well there's synchronicity in action! > >I was just about to post this and a related question. I'm running my > PVR-350 with fairly high (normally) res. PAL settings, and a bitrate of > ~6200 somethings. I get images of ~2.0-2.2 Gb per hour. > >Now, I just downloaded [bittorrent] an episode of something I missed. > The AVI's ~364 Mb for the, I guess, ~43 mins., but is, whem played > through MythVideo, of comparable quality to the stuff I record at 6x the > size! > >Is it possible to tune the PVR to get, if not that small, then > smaller but decent recordings? More usefully for me, can anyone > recommend a codec/encoder that'd generate small & decent files (maybe > even SVCD format) for Myth archiving? ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On 4/28/05, Scott Alfter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Timothy Daniel Hamer wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Scott Alfter wrote: > >> Those AVIs you downloaded probably aren't using MPEG-2, but instead use > >> some variant or another of MPEG-4. That's why they can deliver the same > >> quality in less space. Comparing MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 is like comparing Ogg > >> Vorbis to MP3. > >> > >> You could transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4... > > > > I noticed the same thing with downloaded files vs. files captured from my > > pvr 150, but even when i use mythtranscode to convert them to mpeg-4, i can > > get downloaded AVI files that look much better and are smaller. Should i use > > one of the external transcoding programs instead of mythtranscode? > > There's a possibility that a standalone encoder might work better than > whatever > mythtranscode uses (I don't have much experience with mythtranscode as I edit > and reencode to MPEG-2 to make DVDs). It's also possible that the AVIs you're > downloading were captured from a cleaner source than whatever is feeding your > PVR-150. > i'm not sure if 'Transcode' is used within Myth for transcoding. it can be found at sourceforge and is used in several other video type projects. it looks like it's pretty powerful but also looks to be complex. it does have the cool feature of distributed transcoding though. :) so you could split up your job over several machines to speed things up. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
Timothy Daniel Hamer wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Scott Alfter wrote: >> Those AVIs you downloaded probably aren't using MPEG-2, but instead use >> some variant or another of MPEG-4. That's why they can deliver the same >> quality in less space. Comparing MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 is like comparing Ogg >> Vorbis to MP3. >> >> You could transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4... > > I noticed the same thing with downloaded files vs. files captured from my > pvr 150, but even when i use mythtranscode to convert them to mpeg-4, i can > get downloaded AVI files that look much better and are smaller. Should i use > one of the external transcoding programs instead of mythtranscode? There's a possibility that a standalone encoder might work better than whatever mythtranscode uses (I don't have much experience with mythtranscode as I edit and reencode to MPEG-2 to make DVDs). It's also possible that the AVIs you're downloading were captured from a cleaner source than whatever is feeding your PVR-150. _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden>What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On 4/28/05, Ian Trider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NTSC is analog -- the number of vertical scanlines is fixed at 525, of > which 486 are visible, or for convenience sake when dealing with > MPEG-type encoding algorithms (which work on blocks of 16) 480. > > Horizontal 'resolution' is dependant on a variety of factors; source, > method of transmission, receiving equipment, etc. You should be able > to capture (given that the capture card is of high quality) as much > detail as possible from the source (if it is a high-quality picture > from a local station received by antenna) with a resolution of > 540x480. If you are on cable, depending on the quality of your cable > system, 480x480 should capture full detail. > > Satellite is a different matter. Systems like Bell ExpressVu, > Starchoice, Dish and DirecTV are encoded already into MPEG-2 format, > usually at a resolution of 480x480 on the regular channels, at (IMO) a > far too low bitrate. However, because the receivers only have analog > outputs, that signal is converted back to analog NTSC and recaptured > by MythTV -- capturing at 480x480 probably won't quite capture the > entire resolution, but it's a lost cause, anyway. > > 352x480 will give you something approximately equivilent to a > excellent VHS recording at SP mode. > > Anythingx240 will be discarding have the scanlines vertically, and > will look terrible. > > Resolutiion does not affect file size, bitrate does. However, if you > reduce the resolution, the encoded image will be more similar to the > source in terms of artefacts. This is because there are fewer pixels > to be compressed into any given bitrate. > > Also a restriction you should note is that if you want to go to DVD > without reencoding, you are limited to the resolutions 352x240, > 352x480, 704x480 and 720x480. > > My personal opinion on the matter of 'what is acceptable quality': > > I capture everyday recordings at 352x480, with a bitrate of 3150kbps. > Some minor artefacts are visible in the image, comparable to satellite > (if you consider satellite quality to be acceptable, this bitrate > should be fine for you). > > My "high quality" setting is 720x480 (yes, this is overkill, but > necessary if you want to go to DVD) at a bitrate of IIRC 6200kbps. > This should yield an acceptable image, with almost no visible > artefacts when viewed on an SDTV. (think premium satellite channel). > > You might find this chart interesting: > http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/tutorial/bitrate.html > > .. though because the Hauppauge cards do not have the benefit of being > able to do 2-pass encoding (and the encoder, while good, is not the > best), you'll find that you'll need a slightly higher bitrate than the > chart indicates. For example, I consider 3150kbps to be on the low > end of good at 352x480 when encoded with the PVR-350). Ian, thanks for the info! :) that's exactly what 'i' was looking for. i'm sure Jason and several others will also appreciate the quantitative data you've provided as well. thanks again. ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
> > They probably meant 320x480 (320 pixels/line) and 480 lines. Which is not entirely accurate.. NTSC is analog -- the number of vertical scanlines is fixed at 525, of which 486 are visible, or for convenience sake when dealing with MPEG-type encoding algorithms (which work on blocks of 16) 480. Horizontal 'resolution' is dependant on a variety of factors; source, method of transmission, receiving equipment, etc. You should be able to capture (given that the capture card is of high quality) as much detail as possible from the source (if it is a high-quality picture from a local station received by antenna) with a resolution of 540x480. If you are on cable, depending on the quality of your cable system, 480x480 should capture full detail. Satellite is a different matter. Systems like Bell ExpressVu, Starchoice, Dish and DirecTV are encoded already into MPEG-2 format, usually at a resolution of 480x480 on the regular channels, at (IMO) a far too low bitrate. However, because the receivers only have analog outputs, that signal is converted back to analog NTSC and recaptured by MythTV -- capturing at 480x480 probably won't quite capture the entire resolution, but it's a lost cause, anyway. 352x480 will give you something approximately equivilent to a excellent VHS recording at SP mode. Anythingx240 will be discarding have the scanlines vertically, and will look terrible. Resolutiion does not affect file size, bitrate does. However, if you reduce the resolution, the encoded image will be more similar to the source in terms of artefacts. This is because there are fewer pixels to be compressed into any given bitrate. Also a restriction you should note is that if you want to go to DVD without reencoding, you are limited to the resolutions 352x240, 352x480, 704x480 and 720x480. My personal opinion on the matter of 'what is acceptable quality': I capture everyday recordings at 352x480, with a bitrate of 3150kbps. Some minor artefacts are visible in the image, comparable to satellite (if you consider satellite quality to be acceptable, this bitrate should be fine for you). My "high quality" setting is 720x480 (yes, this is overkill, but necessary if you want to go to DVD) at a bitrate of IIRC 6200kbps. This should yield an acceptable image, with almost no visible artefacts when viewed on an SDTV. (think premium satellite channel). You might find this chart interesting: http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/tutorial/bitrate.html .. though because the Hauppauge cards do not have the benefit of being able to do 2-pass encoding (and the encoder, while good, is not the best), you'll find that you'll need a slightly higher bitrate than the chart indicates. For example, I consider 3150kbps to be on the low end of good at 352x480 when encoded with the PVR-350). -- Ian Trider [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
> They where telling me that the NTSC standard is 720x480, although > cable broadcasts don't use that high, it's much closer to 480x320. They probably meant 320x480 (320 pixels/line) and 480 lines. Niels Dybdahl ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On 4/28/05, Jason McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found some video guys here at work, who know a few things about > video encoding. > > They where telling me that the NTSC standard is 720x480, although > cable broadcasts don't use that high, it's much closer to 480x320. I > originally had my resolution for capturing set to the max, but I'll > try scaling it down to the true broadcast size, that should save some > space. > > Since I'm using a very weak box to run the Myth backend on, I'd > rather have the size determined while the card is encoding with the > hardware MPEG2 encoder. > > -Jason > Actually, if I'm not mistaken, changing just the resolution will have little-to-no effect on the size of the files. You must lower the bitrate. Nate > Blog: http://jason.sdf1.net > GPG Fingerprint: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - A6CC 40B4 99A4 1C08 55A7 BCFC ECDF ED68 115E 5993 > > On 28-Apr-05, at 1:35 PM, Timothy Daniel Hamer wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Scott Alfter wrote: > > > > > >> Neil Bird wrote: > >> > >>> I was just about to post this and a related question. I'm > >>> running my > >>> PVR-350 with fairly high (normally) res. PAL settings, and a > >>> bitrate of > >>> ~6200 somethings. I get images of ~2.0-2.2 Gb per hour. > >>> > >>> Now, I just downloaded [bittorrent] an episode of something I > >>> missed. > >>> The AVI's ~364 Mb for the, I guess, ~43 mins., but is, whem played > >>> through MythVideo, of comparable quality to the stuff I record at > >>> 6x the > >>> size! > >>> > >> > >> Those AVIs you downloaded probably aren't using MPEG-2, but > >> instead use some > >> variant or another of MPEG-4. That's why they can deliver the > >> same quality in > >> less space. Comparing MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 is like comparing Ogg > >> Vorbis to MP3. > >> > >> You could transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (MythTV will even do > >> this for you), > >> but the transcoded recordings won't be playable through your > >> PVR-350. (That > >> assumes you're using its MPEG-2 decoder; I stopped using mine when > >> I upgraded > >> to an LCD TV and switched from S-video to DVI.) > >> > >> _/_ > >> / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) > >> (IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting! > >> \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden>What's the most annoying thing > >> on Usenet? > >> > >> > > > > I noticed the same thing with downloaded files vs. files captured > > from my pvr 150, but even when i use mythtranscode to convert them > > to mpeg-4, i can get downloaded AVI files that look much better and > > are smaller. Should i use one of the external transcoding programs > > instead of mythtranscode? > > ___ > > mythtv-users mailing list > > mythtv-users@mythtv.org > > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > > > > > ___ > mythtv-users mailing list > mythtv-users@mythtv.org > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > > > ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
> I noticed the same thing with downloaded files vs. files captured from my > pvr 150, but even when i use mythtranscode to convert them to mpeg-4, i > can get downloaded AVI files that look much better and are smaller. Should > i use one of the external transcoding programs instead of mythtranscode? A transcoding to MPEG4 from a DVD will give a much better result than transcoding from a recording from a tuner, because there is less noise on a DVD. Downloaded AVI files are often around 1 Mb/s. I transcode to 1.4 Mb/s which is acceptable quality for me. I also transcode to a resolution of 480x576 because there is not more information than 480 pixels per line in a videosignal. If you transcode to 720x576 (or 720x480) you will loose quality because you use some of the data to preserve quality that is not there. Some are even transcoding to fewer pixel per line. I let my PVR-250 record at 4.5 Mb/s at 480x576 pixels to have a good recording to start from and then I transcode to the mentioned 1.4 Mb/s. However for some special movies I record at 4.5 Mb/s at 720x576 pixels, which I then store in DVD format. I guess that you can find an external transcoding program that will perform better if you let it use more time on it. Nuvexport can f.ex use a noise filter before transcoding. This should improve quality but it also takes more time. Niels Dybdahl ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
I found some video guys here at work, who know a few things about video encoding. They where telling me that the NTSC standard is 720x480, although cable broadcasts don't use that high, it's much closer to 480x320. I originally had my resolution for capturing set to the max, but I'll try scaling it down to the true broadcast size, that should save some space. Since I'm using a very weak box to run the Myth backend on, I'd rather have the size determined while the card is encoding with the hardware MPEG2 encoder. -Jason Blog: http://jason.sdf1.net GPG Fingerprint: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - A6CC 40B4 99A4 1C08 55A7 BCFC ECDF ED68 115E 5993 On 28-Apr-05, at 1:35 PM, Timothy Daniel Hamer wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Scott Alfter wrote: Neil Bird wrote: I was just about to post this and a related question. I'm running my PVR-350 with fairly high (normally) res. PAL settings, and a bitrate of ~6200 somethings. I get images of ~2.0-2.2 Gb per hour. Now, I just downloaded [bittorrent] an episode of something I missed. The AVI's ~364 Mb for the, I guess, ~43 mins., but is, whem played through MythVideo, of comparable quality to the stuff I record at 6x the size! Those AVIs you downloaded probably aren't using MPEG-2, but instead use some variant or another of MPEG-4. That's why they can deliver the same quality in less space. Comparing MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 is like comparing Ogg Vorbis to MP3. You could transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (MythTV will even do this for you), but the transcoded recordings won't be playable through your PVR-350. (That assumes you're using its MPEG-2 decoder; I stopped using mine when I upgraded to an LCD TV and switched from S-video to DVI.) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden>What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? I noticed the same thing with downloaded files vs. files captured from my pvr 150, but even when i use mythtranscode to convert them to mpeg-4, i can get downloaded AVI files that look much better and are smaller. Should i use one of the external transcoding programs instead of mythtranscode? ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Scott Alfter wrote: Neil Bird wrote: I was just about to post this and a related question. I'm running my PVR-350 with fairly high (normally) res. PAL settings, and a bitrate of ~6200 somethings. I get images of ~2.0-2.2 Gb per hour. Now, I just downloaded [bittorrent] an episode of something I missed. The AVI's ~364 Mb for the, I guess, ~43 mins., but is, whem played through MythVideo, of comparable quality to the stuff I record at 6x the size! Those AVIs you downloaded probably aren't using MPEG-2, but instead use some variant or another of MPEG-4. That's why they can deliver the same quality in less space. Comparing MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 is like comparing Ogg Vorbis to MP3. You could transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (MythTV will even do this for you), but the transcoded recordings won't be playable through your PVR-350. (That assumes you're using its MPEG-2 decoder; I stopped using mine when I upgraded to an LCD TV and switched from S-video to DVI.) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden>What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? I noticed the same thing with downloaded files vs. files captured from my pvr 150, but even when i use mythtranscode to convert them to mpeg-4, i can get downloaded AVI files that look much better and are smaller. Should i use one of the external transcoding programs instead of mythtranscode? ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
Neil Bird wrote: > I was just about to post this and a related question. I'm running my > PVR-350 with fairly high (normally) res. PAL settings, and a bitrate of > ~6200 somethings. I get images of ~2.0-2.2 Gb per hour. > > Now, I just downloaded [bittorrent] an episode of something I missed. > The AVI's ~364 Mb for the, I guess, ~43 mins., but is, whem played > through MythVideo, of comparable quality to the stuff I record at 6x the > size! Those AVIs you downloaded probably aren't using MPEG-2, but instead use some variant or another of MPEG-4. That's why they can deliver the same quality in less space. Comparing MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 is like comparing Ogg Vorbis to MP3. You could transcode from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (MythTV will even do this for you), but the transcoded recordings won't be playable through your PVR-350. (That assumes you're using its MPEG-2 decoder; I stopped using mine when I upgraded to an LCD TV and switched from S-video to DVI.) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden>What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] Suggested Encoding Rates
Around about 28/04/05 15:54, Jason McLeod typed ... How low of a resolution is too low? How low of a bitrate for the video is too low? Well there's synchronicity in action! I was just about to post this and a related question. I'm running my PVR-350 with fairly high (normally) res. PAL settings, and a bitrate of ~6200 somethings. I get images of ~2.0-2.2 Gb per hour. Now, I just downloaded [bittorrent] an episode of something I missed. The AVI's ~364 Mb for the, I guess, ~43 mins., but is, whem played through MythVideo, of comparable quality to the stuff I record at 6x the size! Is it possible to tune the PVR to get, if not that small, then smaller but decent recordings? More usefully for me, can anyone recommend a codec/encoder that'd generate small & decent files (maybe even SVCD format) for Myth archiving? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rm -f .signature [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# ls -l .signature ls: .signature: No such file or directory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# exit ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
