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
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
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
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
I'm a little new to encoding video. Usually I just care about the
end format, not the resolution and bitrate.
I leave it to the list, are there any resources out there that you
use to decide your recording rates? My card is a PVR-150MCE, so it's
doing hardware MPEG2 encoding.
How low of
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
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.
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]
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
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?
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
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
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)
On 4/28/05, Ian Trider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
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
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
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.
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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
