On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote:
Hi!
> > In utils/cpu_accel.c you should see the function bufalloc() which
> > is where the malloc error is coming from. The only thing I can
> > think of to try is add a "fprintf(stderr, "size = %d\n", size);"
> I did it. The request size
Hi,
On Monday 24 November 2003 18.16, you wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for all of your help. I had to upgrade libtool and autoconf.
> > Then the build went smoothly. But when I tried yuvdenoise, I got an
> > memory
> In utils/cpu_accel.c you should see
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Malloc failed, Was: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:32:35 +0100
From: Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steven M. Schultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 18 November 2003
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Michael Hanke wrote:
> > Try it again but instead of giving up post the results and we'll
> > see what we can do to help. You'll need the various development
> This is very kind of you. The system is a SuSE 7.2 with security updates from
You're welcome.
On Thursday 13 November 2003 08.23, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> 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) fai
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Mjpeg-users] MPEG2 encoding performance
>
> On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> > What is _your_ source?
>
> Which one? ;)
>
> The author of mpeg2enc is
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
Hi -
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, John Ribera wrote:
> Did I just hear elimination of B frames:
Not exactly ;)
They are optional now though so you can choose if you want/need
them or not.
> 1) lowers bitrate, ie file size
In some cases - mostly with noisy sourc
On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote:
> What is _your_ source?
Which one? ;)
The author of mpeg2enc is one. Another can be found in one of
the links from http://www.mir.com/DMG/, go to the MPEG FAQ
and read http://tns-www.lcs.mit.edu/manuals/mpeg2/FAQ
> If people think that yuvdenoise and mpeg2enc are "more than ready" for a
> stable release, I'll package a 1.6.1.91... Else, I'll wait a few days
> longer. ;).
>
> Ronald
There was a problem reported a while back with post-1.6.1 yuvdenoise
(that is, after my 4:1:1 patches) producing some visual
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:07, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> > So, essentially you're saying that MPEG2 without B-frames is perfectly
> > legal from the DVD standards p.o.v., right?
>
> They are, and always have been, optional. Nothing says that B
>
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:53, Alexei Dets wrote:
>
> Can we expect a stable _release_ version anytime soon?
Or at least a 1.6.1.91 type of thing... ;-) When CVS seems healthy
enough for a partial release.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
--
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> If people think that yuvdenoise and mpeg2enc are "more than ready" for a
> stable release, I'll package a 1.6.1.91... Else, I'll wait a few days
> longer. ;).
yuvdenoise was a problem this past weekend on OS/X - but it is
working now af
Hi,
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 22:53, Alexei Dets wrote:
> Can we expect a stable _release_ version anytime soon? Current CVS mjpegtools
> are FAR better than 1.6.1 but it is impossible to get it in the packaged form
> - all distributions are packaging the latest release... :-(((
Wink noted again. I
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Alexei Dets wrote:
> Yes, lots of new features...
And a couple bugs ;)
> Can we expect a stable _release_ version anytime soon? Current CVS mjpegtools
Not at the moment, there are a couple issues (boundary cases that
most folks would not notice) tha
Hi!
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 17:10, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> Main feature that 1.6.1.90 brought to the party was the -K option
> and libquicktime (instead of the old/incompatible quicktime4linux)
> support. Since then quite a few improvements have been made.
Yes, lots of n
On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote:
> So, essentially you're saying that MPEG2 without B-frames is perfectly
> legal from the DVD standards p.o.v., right?
They are, and always have been, optional. Nothing says that B
frames _must_ be used. In many cases they are a win but wit
On 11 Nov 2003, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 06:14, Andrew Stevens wrote:
>
> > -f 8 -E -10 -q 6 -R 0 -I 0 -K tmpgenc
>
> Hmmm... I'm using 1.6.1.90 and i cannot find some options (-E, -10, -R)
> in the man page nor in the --help output.
>
> Are you using a recent CVS or someth
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 06:14, Andrew Stevens wrote:
> -f 8 -E -10 -q 6 -R 0 -I 0 -K tmpgenc
Hmmm... I'm using 1.6.1.90 and i cannot find some options (-E, -10, -R)
in the man page nor in the --help output.
Are you using a recent CVS or something?
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
---
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 09:14, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> If you do that (and it has almost always improved the compression for
> me - sometimes quite substantially) then you may encounter playback
> difficulties with Ogle - seems they don't handle the dual prime
> motion esti
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 18:49, Andrew Stevens wrote:
> Ronald: I don't think a gstreamer wrapper for libmpeg2encpp will be too hard.
> However, I worry about the fact that I need to link all the C++ library
> routines. Are there any existing C++ based plugin's?
Lots. Modplug, matrosk
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Andrew Stevens wrote:
> > Hmmm, without the -I 0 I only get about 15 Frame/sec on my Athlon
> > 2800. Does -I 0 make that big of a difference?
>
> -I 0 really does make that big a difference. If you know you don't have
> interlaced material then you should always us
Hi Steven,
Lying around useless with the 'flu today but I have spent the time learning
more about PIC code and shared libs Basically, I think if all the relevant
libs are compiled for shared library usage we should be in business. I've
modified the nasm sources so all the assmbler routines
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Andrew Stevens wrote:
> Well... its got a little way to go before its professional quality...
It's getting closer every week/month though ;)
> So, to compare like with like you have to compare default mpeg2enc and MPEG-4
> encoder encoding full CCITT 720x pictures w
Hi Laurent,
> I might be wrong as I don't have an in-depth knowledge of MPEG2 and MPEG4
> compression, but it seems to me that MPEG4 compression is more time
> consumming than MPEG2.
>
> I know that mpeg2enc is a professional-quality tool that can give extremely
> good quality MPEG2 streams.
Well
26 matches
Mail list logo
