>BTW, I notice that memory allocation at startup for the transcode process
>is about 3x the size of 1.0.2 for the cvs branch... And suspiciously
>close to 2x the size of the input .avi file. 300mb vs 100mb. Now, I
>realise this could be coming from any number of places, but I wonder if
>something isn't reading the whole input file into memory at startup?
The maximum video buffer size was increased from 1920x1088 to
2500x2500, and 2500*2500*3 is roughly thrice 1920*1088*3. That's
probably where the size difference comes from. (It would be much
cleverer of transcode to allocate only as much space as was actually
needed for processing, but there's currently no way to propogate size
changes through the processing pipeline, so that'll have to wait for a
future version.)
--Andrew Church
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://achurch.org/
