Dick Balaska wrote:

> I like the Berkeley encoder.  I think it produces pretty good mpegs,
> and they are much much smaller than the likes of cmpeg.  Bummer that
> it doesn't produce mpeg-2s.
> 
> Here's the settings i used on one run:

Thanks, Dick. I'll give these a try. I don't know much about this
program, but I'm learning.

I likewise would like to produce some mpeg-2 files, but that's
another fight.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Steve Martin wrote:
> >

> > Just for the sake of those (like me) whose NG server seems to have
> > dropped some messages, can you tell me what site you're talking
> > about?

> You NG server has nothing to do with it.

DOH! Well, of course it doesn't. Forgive the cranial-rectal inversion...
I
was thinking about my ISP when I wrote that. 

> You most likely have an expiration
> time set for news group articles in your news reader program.

Thanks for the tip. I made a change in my configuration that
(hopefully) will mean that I won't miss any more messages.

Post a reply to this message

In order to change the quality or file size when using the Berkeley
encoder, you must change the three Q-scale values.

For example,
    IQSCALE    4
    PQSCALE    8
    BQSCALE    8
will get you results that are closer to those of CMPEG.  Using a value of 1
for all three will result in high quality and large size.  Using 31 for all
three results in very low quality and small size.

I've also noticed that, given the same parameters, the dos port produces
lower quality files than the Linux version.

--
Anthony C. D'Agostino - BMRT and POVRay Galleries
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/scorpius



Dick Balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom> wrote in message
news:385E697A.D29A8FED@buckosoft.com...
> I like the Berkeley encoder.  I think it produces pretty good mpegs,
> and they are much much smaller than the likes of cmpeg.  Bummer that
> it doesn't produce mpeg-2s.
>
> Here's the settings i used on one run:
>
> PATTERN IBBPBBPBBPBBPBB
> OUTPUT e:\povwin3\Buckosoft\mpegs\tteoac.mpg
> INPUT_DIR f:\povwin3\BuckoSoft\tteoac
> INPUT
> tteo*.ppm [0001-1752]
> END_INPUT
> BASE_FILE_FORMAT PPM
> INPUT_CONVERT *
> FORCE_ENCODE_LAST_FRAME
> GOP_SIZE 30
> SLICES_PER_FRAME 1
> PIXEL HALF
> RANGE 10
> #PSEARCH_ALG LOGARITHMIC
> #PSEARCH_ALG SUBSAMPLE
> PSEARCH_ALG TWOLEVEL
> #PSEARCH_ALG EXHAUSTIVE
> BSEARCH_ALG CROSS2
> #BSEARCH_ALG EXHAUSTIVE
> IQSCALE 8
> PQSCALE 10
> BQSCALE 25
> REFERENCE_FRAME DECODED
>
> I tried the EXHAUSTIVE algorithm which increased the encoding time from
about
> 6 hours to a couple of months without any real improvement

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:31:21 -0800, "Jon A. Cruz"
<jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:

>TonyB wrote:
>
>> So NTSC is 720x480ish. What is PAL?
>
>720x560 25 fps 9843.75k
>
>NTSC is 720x480ish 30 fps
>
I don't suppose you could quote the spec for PAL VHS could you? I know
it's less, but as I hope to put some stuff on VHS one day I don't want
to overburden my poor PC with too much work...


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/

Post a reply to this message

There's square and non-square pixels apparently.  PAL has a 768 X 576 or 768 X
288 frame size according to:
http://reality.sgi.com/cpirazzi_esd/lg/big/howbig.html

Bob

"Cliff Bowman" <c.b### [at] cwcomnet> wrote in message
news:388dbe7a.66011648@news.povray.org...
| On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:31:21 -0800, "Jon A. Cruz"
| <jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
|
| >TonyB wrote:
| >
| >> So NTSC is 720x480ish. What is PAL?
| >
| >720x560 25 fps 9843.75k
| >
| >NTSC is 720x480ish 30 fps
| >
| I don't suppose you could quote the spec for PAL VHS could you? I know
| it's less, but as I hope to put some stuff on VHS one day I don't want
| to overburden my poor PC with too much work...
|
|
| Cheers,
|
| Cliff Bowman
| Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/

Post a reply to this message

Since the horizontal is not discrete and is contained in an analog signal, you
can have just about as many horizontal pixels as you want. 640x480 will give you
square pixels, but 768 will match the signal a little cleaner.

Also, 768x576 at 25 frames per second is really two 768x288 fields per frame, and
thus 768x288 x 50 fields per second. One field has all the odd scan-lines, the
next field has all the even scan-lines. Then you also get into the problem of
field-major (?) or field-minor, where you need to figure out which to send first,
the odd field or the even field. Also, I'm not sure, but I seem to recal that VHS
just records one field of two, but don't hold me to that without checking.


Bob Hughes wrote:

> There's square and non-square pixels apparently.  PAL has a 768 X 576 or 768 X
> 288 frame size according to:
> http://reality.sgi.com/cpirazzi_esd/lg/big/howbig.html
>
> Bob
>
> "Cliff Bowman" <c.b### [at] cwcomnet> wrote in message
> news:388dbe7a.66011648@news.povray.org...
> | On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:31:21 -0800, "Jon A. Cruz"
> | <jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
> |
> | >TonyB wrote:
> | >
> | >> So NTSC is 720x480ish. What is PAL?
> | >
> | >720x560 25 fps 9843.75k
> | >
> | >NTSC is 720x480ish 30 fps
> | >
> | I don't suppose you could quote the spec for PAL VHS could you? I know
> | it's less, but as I hope to put some stuff on VHS one day I don't want
> | to overburden my poor PC with too much work...
> |
> |
> | Cheers,
> |
> | Cliff Bowman
> | Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message