 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> MPEG1 sucks.
>>
>> Define "sucks".
>
> The picture quality of MPEG1 is something horrible.
Doesn't that rather depend on what bitrate you select? [Same as any
other lossy codec...]
Now, if you wanted to say that the picture quality to bitrate ratio is
inferior, that's another matter.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>>> MPEG1 sucks.
>>>
>>> Define "sucks".
>>
>> The picture quality of MPEG1 is something horrible.
>
> Doesn't that rather depend on what bitrate you select? [Same as any
> other lossy codec...]
No, AFAIK with MPEG-1 the bitrate only defines *how* horrible the
picture quality is.
Go ahead, prove me wrong and throw a link to MPEG-1 -file, which
actually has good picture quality?
> Now, if you wanted to say that the picture quality to bitrate ratio is
> inferior, that's another matter.
Yes, that's another matter, but that's also true.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It always bugs me when people build open-source tools they expect others
> to use (like libraries and such) and then expect you to read the source
> code to try to figure out what it does because they're too lazy to write
> even the vaguest of documentation.
Fortunately mplayer isn't such a software.
Can you give me an example of a library which is almost completely
undocumented? (Sure, in many cases the documentation sucks big time,
but usually you *can* start using the library by reading the documentation,
even if it could have been made easier.)
In fact, many open source libraries have pretty decent documentations.
One example: http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Weirdly, my PC will play DVDs, but if I tell Mencoder to produce an
> MPEG-2 file instead of MPEG-1, the result isn't playable.
Just because both use the same video standard doesn't mean that the same
codec can be used for both cases.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Weirdly, my PC will play DVDs, but if I tell Mencoder to produce an
>> MPEG-2 file instead of MPEG-1, the result isn't playable.
>
> Just because both use the same video standard doesn't mean that the same
> codec can be used for both cases.
It's just a little strange that if I have an MPEG-2 file on a DVD, it
plays, but if I have one on my harddrive, it doesn't. Oh well...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Why can't I just say -ovc mpeg1? Why do I have to say -ovc lacv
> -lavcopts vcodec=mpeg1video? That seems unecessarily complex.
Because you might want to use some other library than lavc to create
your mpeg1 stream.
(Yes, creating an mpeg video is not an unambiguous process. Some encoders
do a better job than others.)
> Also, why is there *nowhere* in the manual that says "to produce a
> standard MPEG-1 file, type XYZ"?
Because mplayer is not an mpeg1 encoder?
> As far as I can tell, making Mencoder output any format is equally
> difficult and error-prone. [I still can't get it to produce an
> uncompressed AVI file that anything except MPlayer can comprehend.]
> Adding a rare codec like XviD would just make matters worse...
Why would it make matters worse? I would say all the contrary.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why can't I just say -ovc mpeg1? Why do I have to say -ovc lacv
>> -lavcopts vcodec=mpeg1video? That seems unecessarily complex.
>
> Because you might want to use some other library than lavc to create
> your mpeg1 stream.
OK, so why does each library have its own completely unrelated interface
then? Why should I have to memorise which library does what just to
perform the very simple task of producing a plain ordinary MPEG file?
>> Also, why is there *nowhere* in the manual that says "to produce a
>> standard MPEG-1 file, type XYZ"?
>
> Because mplayer is not an mpeg1 encoder?
I... don't even know what to say to that.
>> As far as I can tell, making Mencoder output any format is equally
>> difficult and error-prone. [I still can't get it to produce an
>> uncompressed AVI file that anything except MPlayer can comprehend.]
>> Adding a rare codec like XviD would just make matters worse...
>
> Why would it make matters worse? I would say all the contrary.
My problem is with programs not being able to read the data. Surely the
correct course of action is to seek out more common file formats, not
more obscure ones?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, so why does each library have its own completely unrelated interface
> then? Why should I have to memorise which library does what just to
> perform the very simple task of producing a plain ordinary MPEG file?
Because it's not a GUI.
If you want a GUI, use VirtualDub.
> >> As far as I can tell, making Mencoder output any format is equally
> >> difficult and error-prone. [I still can't get it to produce an
> >> uncompressed AVI file that anything except MPlayer can comprehend.]
> >> Adding a rare codec like XviD would just make matters worse...
> >
> > Why would it make matters worse? I would say all the contrary.
> My problem is with programs not being able to read the data. Surely the
> correct course of action is to seek out more common file formats, not
> more obscure ones?
Which raw video format are you using? Those are obscure, if any.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Just because both use the same video standard doesn't mean that the
>> same
>> codec can be used for both cases.
>
> It's just a little strange that if I have an MPEG-2 file on a DVD, it
> plays, but if I have one on my harddrive, it doesn't. Oh well...
That may say something about your media player on your computer.
--
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Why can't I just say -ovc mpeg1? Why do I have to say -ovc lacv
> -lavcopts vcodec=mpeg1video? That seems unecessarily complex.
Warp answered that: Why should mencoder choose for you which library
you should use?
I think the problem you're dealing with is that mencoder is meant to be
somewhat general purpose. I can easily imagine another encoder out there
that's as easy to use as you want, but would simply be inflexible - lack
of choices. mencoder is designed for flexibility.
> Also, why is there *nowhere* in the manual that says "to produce a
> standard MPEG-1 file, type XYZ"? Do you have any idea how freakin long
> it took me to decode the manual to the point where I could construct
> this commandline?
They give various examples at the end of the man file. Yes, MPEG-1 is
not explicitly provided, but then why should they provide that over,
say, MPEG-4 or some other codec? I think you're mistaken in thinking
that most people do encoding into MPEG-1 - it's usually to encode to
xvid, divx or something similar.
In any case:
mencoder "mf://*.jpg" -mf fps=25 -o output.avi -ovc lavc -lavcopts
vcodec=mpeg4
It shouldn't be too hard to go from there to mpeg1.
> [E.g., nowhere is it actually documented that if you want to pass
> *multiple* options to lavc, you have to seperate them with colons.
Right in the beginning of the section for lavcopts, you see:
EXAMPLE:
vcodec=msmpeg4:vbitrate=1800:vhq:keyint=250
Should be enough of a hint.
> Eventually I noticed it in an example - an example demonstrating
> something completely unrelated to syntax - and copied it. In general,
> trying to figure out how the hell to make Mencoder do anything reduces
> to endless trail and cryptic error...]
Can't say I figured everything out by reading mencoder man file. I have
in the past done Google searches and looked at other people's scripts.
However, it's not obvious to me how it can be made better.
> As far as I can tell, making Mencoder output any format is equally
> difficult and error-prone. [I still can't get it to produce an
> uncompressed AVI file that anything except MPlayer can comprehend.]
> Adding a rare codec like XviD would just make matters worse...
xvid is not exactly rare.
I'd be curious to see if the same command you're giving will produce a
working avi file on my side...
--
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
