|
 |
> Maybe that sentence was unclear. I did mean "through the VirtualDub
stream filter
> system". To be combatant about it ;O it *is* VirtualDub which encodes the
stream.
> The codecs just supply a filter specific to a type of stream.
I don't pretend to know much about the mecahnics of video encoding, but
surely even though VitrualDub actualy does the mathematical operations, they
are dictated by the codec, and hence it shouldn't actually matter which
encoder you use?
> Actually, as i said, i have a top quality MPEG-1. It is unplayable
because
> the bitrate is way too high. But i can look at individual frames and they
> are pretty dang close to the original PNGs.
Only to the eyes. Isn't MPEG a bit like JPEG in that it executes profiled
on what people can see and that overlaying one MPEG compression on top of
another (AKA pre-encoding, re-encoding) actually 'corrupts' the frames much
faster than single encoding.
Also MPEG-1 has brutual image size limitations.
> Here i think *you* are mistaken. There is nothing in the MPEG-1 spec that
> sez it has to look crappy. If i encode a GOP of 1 (all I frames) with
> ISCALE = 1, i am going to get pretty close to the source output.
Yup, This is like firing a series of JPEG files as all files are internal
only encoded....
>Of course,
> there is no M$ software that is going to deal with such a bitrate that
this
> MPEG would require.
Are there any under anything else that will either? What kind of bitrate
does this actually require?
> (Someday, i'd like to measure SCSI 160's actual transfer rate under
Win2K.)
>
> > What you should do is to convert your frames directly to an AVI with
raw
> > video (there are tools for that in the net; they just take the frames
and
> > put them in a raw format in the AVI and that's it). Then you can open
this
> > AVI in VirtualDub and encode it to another AVI using MPEG-4 (I suggest
using
> > the latest DivX codec as it has lots of quality fine-tuning options and
> > optimizations; http://divx.com).
Can't you use something like Fast Movie Processor to skip the raw video
phase and go directly from frames to compressed video?
> And neither is as good as MPEG. For example, here is a frame:
> http://frank.buckosoft.com:2270/_frd?t=m&project=tteoac-512&Frame=2151
> (from the 512x384 set). The spotlight on the wall is the headlamp of the
locomotive.
> POV-Ray makes beautiful delicate shadows on the wall which MPEG-1
preserves
> pretty well. All of the AVI codecs i've tried turn that beige/white wall
> and it's shadows into fractalized blocky things.
Sorry, I have to write these damn things offline, but I'll check it out
soon... What settings were you using on the AVI codecs?
> I was surfing through the porny groups (strictly as a research project)
;) - Joke
> and none of the DIVXs or MPEG-4s look as good as the few MPEG-2s that i
found.
> (Classic example: the "model" is being videoed and photoed at the same
time.
> The flash of the stills camera totally confuses the video codec into the
> exact same fractal patterns that i am getting).
>
> > What a DVD uses is the MPEG-2 format. MPEG-4 can reach the same image
> > quality with smaller file sizes.
> I have a Sigma MPEG-2 encoder in my PC. If i could find a way to feed it
PNGs
> at 30 fps, i'd be all set. Um, no i wouldn't; it wants video in. Maybe i
could
> print out my frames and hold them in front of a camera real fast.
Yeah, that would a cool thing to do! Back to the 'good old days' of
animation! Could you try using FMP with an MPEG 2 codec? Does this cause you
the same compression problems?
As for Flask, I have heard varying reports of it... Personally I found my
relationship with it a very short one...
1. Installed it
2. Ran it
3. It crashed horribly
4. Ran it
5. It did bugger all
6. Ran it
7. It crashed
8. Installed a different version
9. It half did something, and took a little while
10. It crashed
11. It was uninstalled and the install files deleted...
However I know people who swear by it, good luck and backup your data...
My 2 yen,
Regards,
Luke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
