On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 09:33 +0300, Uri Lublin wrote:
> On 04/12/2010 09:57 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > I did some simple testing of the new mjpeg encoder.
> > Showing the youtube "will it blend - ipad" video i got quite better
> > compression (24k per frame average as opposed to 35k before), b
On 04/12/2010 09:57 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
I did some simple testing of the new mjpeg encoder.
Showing the youtube "will it blend - ipad" video i got quite better
compression (24k per frame average as opposed to 35k before), but the
code used a bit more cpu (9.8 msec per frame where it was
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 08:04 +0300, Izik Eidus wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:36:03 +0200
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 20:57 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > I did some simple testing of the new mjpeg encoder.
> > > Showing the youtube "will it blend - ipad" video i
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:36:03 +0200
Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 20:57 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > I did some simple testing of the new mjpeg encoder.
> > Showing the youtube "will it blend - ipad" video i got quite better
> > compression (24k per frame average as oppos
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 20:57 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> I did some simple testing of the new mjpeg encoder.
> Showing the youtube "will it blend - ipad" video i got quite better
> compression (24k per frame average as opposed to 35k before), but the
> code used a bit more cpu (9.8 msec per fr
I did some simple testing of the new mjpeg encoder.
Showing the youtube "will it blend - ipad" video i got quite better
compression (24k per frame average as opposed to 35k before), but the
code used a bit more cpu (9.8 msec per frame where it was 4.2 before). I
made a simple change in the libjpeg
