On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gene Dascher wrote:
> > No problems running the ./autogen.sh script? Some folks seem to
> > have a very difficult time getting past that step.
>
> No problems at all
That's good to hear. Usually if that works and the compile
goes to error-f
Steven M. Schultz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gene Dascher wrote:
following the threads on the "Users" mailing list with great interest and
was interested in trying the CVS version to gain access to some of the
newer features. I did a checkout of the mjpeg_play module, then used the
autogen
> No problems running the ./autogen.sh script? Some folks seem to
> have a very difficult time getting past that step.
That includes me.
Two hours ago, I just did a "cvs update" for the first time in, like,
3 months, and I still haven't gotten the source to build again.
Thus, I
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gene Dascher wrote:
> following the threads on the "Users" mailing list with great interest and
> was interested in trying the CVS version to gain access to some of the
> newer features. I did a checkout of the mjpeg_play module, then used the
> autogen.sh, after which I
I have been a longtime user of mjpegtools with great success. I have been following
the threads on the "Users" mailing list with
great interest and was interested in trying the CVS version to gain access to some of
the newer features. I did a checkout of the
mjpeg_play module, then used the aut
I finally got pissed off with Winblows enough that I would rather take more time in
Linux then worry about using Winblows ever again. So what command line for mpeg2enc
would give the best results without worrying about the time taking. The source will be
from my tv capture card 352x480 video (ha
I have been a longtime user of mjpegtools with great success. I have been following
the threads on the "Users" mailing list with great interest and was interested in
trying the CVS version to gain access to some of the newer features. I did a checkout
of the mjpeg_play module, then used the au
Did I just hear elimination of B frames:
1) lowers bitrate, ie file size
2) improves output
3) faster encoding (ok so i'm reaching)
so, basically, unless you're editing, B frames are a 3 strike out, IMO.
- Original Message -
From: "Steven M. Schultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23.30, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> >
> > "cvs update" is your friend
> >
> Mmmh... That's what I tried to do. But autoconf/automake (invoked by autogen)
> failed with many undefined macros/errors etc. So I gave up.
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23.30, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>
> "cvs update" is your friend
>
Mmmh... That's what I tried to do. But autoconf/automake (invoked by autogen)
failed with many undefined macros/errors etc. So I gave up.
Michael
10 matches
Mail list logo
