Oh I see what you are talking about. You're talking about having it so many MB per hour based on the size of the video based in time. For some insane reason I thought you meant having the machine do so many MB per hour then stopping.
Instead of doing it per hour though I think better results would get you if you did it so many MB per minute. My rule of thumb is 10 MB of file per every 1 min of video. I have no reason where I got that from and I actually can't remember if I've ever done anything like that. Would not the bpp option that I 'm thinking of do just about the same thing? Jeff -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Ehrens Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:11 PM To: transcode Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [transcode-users] Script Posting? >> I wonder if it wouldn't be preferable for the file size >> option to be taken as a scaling factor, i.e. 600Mb per hour >> of material instead of per input file. >> >> > >Jeff Hyche wrote: > I have not thought of that, and I'm not exactly sure how to do it. I'm also > not sure of how much better it would be than what I'm doing. One thing that > I'm thinking for doing is instead of file size, do a bpp setting. If you > don't input a file size the program will generate a bitrate based on the bpp > ration being around 0.2. fsize=`bc << _EOF $seconds*$mbytes/3600 _EOF `
