 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
I don't see why a CLI necessarily means it must be cryptic.
>> 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.
Plain uncompressed AVI is "rare"?!?
[It's the *default option* for Virtual Dub!]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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?
OK, try this:
http://download.orphi.me.uk/Video/Example.mpg
100% flawless picture quality with absolutely no visible artifacts of
any kind - and with a highly intricate and detailed image full of
motion. And it's only 4 MB. [Admittedly it's also only a few seconds...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://download.orphi.me.uk/Video/Example.mpg
No such server.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://download.orphi.me.uk/Video/Example.mpg
>
> No such server.
Au contrare, I think my host's MIME types are configured wrong or
something. Try downloading the file and playing it locally...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> OK, try this:
>
> http://download.orphi.me.uk/Video/Example.mpg
Ok, it's not horrible, I have to admit. It's hard to see the artifacts
'cause the movement is so fast and due to fact that interest of viewer
is drawn to the dancing movement in the middle of the picture (the point
of MPEG and JPEG).
> 100% flawless picture quality with absolutely no visible artifacts of
> any kind - and with a highly intricate and detailed image full of
> motion. And it's only 4 MB. [Admittedly it's also only a few seconds...]
On this I can't agree. There are visible artifacts on gradients. I tried
to shoot some examples on it, but my digicam jpg-messed the fotos even
more (the other one is cropped in Gimp, hence png to avoid more messing up):
http://www.zbxt.net/~aero/AndVid1.png
http://www.zbxt.net/~aero/AndVid2.jpg
On those images the clip has been decoded with hardware decoder (em8300)
and softened while moved via Y/C -signaling. And JPEG'ed after that by
my digicam, so don't assume to find all the same artifacts right away.
But I noticed them also (actually, at first) on my laptop, with software
decoding (and a goddamn TN-panel), without pausing the clip oslt, so
they do exist. Easiest way to start finding them is pausing the image
(eg on 0.4 sec is a good place) and check the gradients of the noise at
the background.
OTOH, don't try to learn to notice such things automatically. It's a lot
easier to enjoy the show itself, when you're not scanning backgrounds
etc for artifacts...
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Ok, it's not horrible, I have to admit. It's hard to see the artifacts
> 'cause the movement is so fast and due to fact that interest of viewer
> is drawn to the dancing movement in the middle of the picture (the point
> of MPEG and JPEG).
The file happened to be laying around on my HD. It's actually meant to
be watched at 22 frames/second - but the MPEG headers say 25, which is
why it looks so damned fast. But I tried freeze-framing it in a few
places, and nothing really serious was evident.
Certainly this video looks miles better than anything Mencoder has so
far managed to produce for me. Every time I try with Mencoder, I get
huge blocks of rainbow colours appearing here and there, and sometimes
really ugly DCT artifacts as if the file is actually corrupted somehow...
>> 100% flawless picture quality with absolutely no visible artifacts of
>> any kind - and with a highly intricate and detailed image full of
>> motion. And it's only 4 MB. [Admittedly it's also only a few seconds...]
>
> On this I can't agree. There are visible artifacts on gradients.
Well OK, but you have to look pretty damned hard to find them. Certainly
compered to the chewed up mess Mencoder gives me, these look flawless!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
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.
>
> Warp answered that: Why should mencoder choose for you which library
> you should use?
I was under the impression that Mencoder *is* a library...
> 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.
[Except for the minor detail that you need to say vcodec=mpeg1video, not
just vcodec=mpeg1. And you have to use a different container format.
From a different library.]
> xvid is not exactly rare.
In which population? :-P
[Notice how every time somebody posts an Xvid or DivX or anything else
to the POV-Ray servers, everybody complains they can't play it until
somebody gets it transcoded back to MPEG-1?]
> I'd be curious to see if the same command you're giving will produce
> a working avi file on my side...
mencoder mf://*.png -ovc raw -of avi -o Test.avi
That's from memory anyway... I'll check when I get home.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am becoming increasingly frustrated with Mencoder.
Does *anybody* know of *any* tool [apart from Mencoder] which can
programmatically generate an uncompressed AVI file from a bunch of PNG
files? I can't believe how hard this is...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>I am becoming increasingly frustrated with Mencoder.
>
>Does *anybody* know of *any* tool [apart from Mencoder] which can
>programmatically generate an uncompressed AVI file from a bunch of PNG
>files? I can't believe how hard this is...
A bit old but DTA (Dave's Targa Animator) could be programmed after a
fashion
I can't remember if it uses PNG's
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Does *anybody* know of *any* tool [apart from Mencoder] which can
> programmatically generate an uncompressed AVI file from a bunch of PNG
> files? I can't believe how hard this is...
My research so far:
- Media Coder: Appears to be a thin front-end for Mencoder.
- AVIsynth: Doesn't actually synthesize AVIs.
- ImageMagick: Appears to *read* AVIs, but not write them.
- VirtualDub: Has "Sylia, the world's worst scripting language", which
may or may not allow me to do what I want.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
