Gail wrote:
> They don't just resize. They also convert into flash and I think 
> compress more. It's not just a size thing.

Sure. But my particular video has a problem because the waves are 
approaching pixel size. There aren't actually all that many compression 
artifacts in this particular video. (Because most of the image is black, 
so it compresses quite easily...)

Post a reply to this message

>> ...they have tutorials now? ._.
> 
> <sigh> Do you think that everyone else just somehow managed to intuit 
> the proper settings?

Well yeah, presumably.

I mean, TMPGEnc doesn't come with a manual or any tutorials either, and 
most people manage to figure that out. Ditto for Virtual Dub...

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:490acebb$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I mean, TMPGEnc doesn't come with a manual or any tutorials either, and 
> most people manage to figure that out. Ditto for Virtual Dub...

It may not come with it, but that doesn't stop people who have wored things 
out to write tutorials for all the people who can't or who don't want to 
fiddle for days to get a good result.
If you're wondering how to do something, ask google. Chances are, someone 
has done it before and will have written up something explainig how.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> ...they have tutorials now? ._.
> > 
> > <sigh> Do you think that everyone else just somehow managed to intuit 
> > the proper settings?

> Well yeah, presumably.

> I mean, TMPGEnc doesn't come with a manual or any tutorials either, and 
> most people manage to figure that out. Ditto for Virtual Dub...

  You know, there's this thing called "Google". Ever tried that?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail wrote:

> It may not come with it, but that doesn't stop people who have wored 
> things out to write tutorials for all the people who can't or who don't 
> want to fiddle for days to get a good result.
> If you're wondering how to do something, ask google. Chances are, 
> someone has done it before and will have written up something explainig 
> how.

I guess I just assumed that if something doesn't come with any 
instructions, it's supposed to be "obvious" enough that you don't need them.

At the time, I was only really trying out various codecs. The general 
conclusion I reached is that every codec known to man produces some 
degree of visible distortion, so it's best to store everything fully 
uncompressed, only encoding it when writing to DVD. Basically I only 
ever play video on my PC or on a DVD; I've never tried to put video onto 
the Internet before.

I decided that for lossy encoding, MPEG1 is good enough. (And has the 
advantage that absolutely everything can play it, and there's a nice, 
free, fairly usable encoder available.)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:490ad8c2$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>
>> It may not come with it, but that doesn't stop people who have wored 
>> things out to write tutorials for all the people who can't or who don't 
>> want to fiddle for days to get a good result.
>> If you're wondering how to do something, ask google. Chances are, someone 
>> has done it before and will have written up something explainig how.
>
> I guess I just assumed that if something doesn't come with any 
> instructions, it's supposed to be "obvious" enough that you don't need 
> them.

No. You assume that it should be obvious.
Most other people I know (myself included) would go looking for some 
assistance (whether it be asking someone or searching online)

Post a reply to this message

Gail wrote:

>> I guess I just assumed that if something doesn't come with any 
>> instructions, it's supposed to be "obvious" enough that you don't need 
>> them.
> 
> No. You assume that it should be obvious.
> Most other people I know (myself included) would go looking for some 
> assistance (whether it be asking someone or searching online)

Well, the encoder _did_ work. It just produced very bad quality 
pictures. I assumed it was just a naff codec, and continued my 
explorations elsewhere. (At the time I'd never heard of it before, so I 
figured that was because it's not very good.)

I do recall spending 4 days trying to get a codec called "cinepak" to 
work well - and when I mentioned it online, somebody said "OMG, do you 
have *any idea* how ancient that thing is? Get rid of it!" I guess I 
assumed that DivX must be similar, so I didn't spent too many hours 
trying to fix it.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:490adb53@news.povray.org...

> I do recall spending 4 days trying to get a codec called "cinepak" to work 
> well - and when I mentioned it online, somebody said "OMG, do you have 
> *any idea* how ancient that thing is? Get rid of it!" I guess I assumed 
> that DivX must be similar, so I didn't spent too many hours trying to fix 
> it.

You seem to often make assumptions based on insufficient information. Don't. 
Investigate, verify, confirm for yourself. The tools needed are there, it's 
not hard.
You do your reputation no good if you make an assumption that 2 min or less 
with google will show to be completely false.

Post a reply to this message

Gail wrote:
> 
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
> news:490adb53@news.povray.org...
> 
>> I do recall spending 4 days trying to get a codec called "cinepak" to 
>> work well - and when I mentioned it online, somebody said "OMG, do you 
>> have *any idea* how ancient that thing is? Get rid of it!" I guess I 
>> assumed that DivX must be similar, so I didn't spent too many hours 
>> trying to fix it.
> 
> You seem to often make assumptions based on insufficient information. 
> Don't. Investigate, verify, confirm for yourself. The tools needed are 
> there, it's not hard.
> You do your reputation no good if you make an assumption that 2 min or 
> less with google will show to be completely false.

You look at your PC. You have half a dozen codecs available. Which ones 
are you going to spend most time investigating? The ones you've never 
heard of? Or the ones you've heard about that are supposed to be good? 
Where are you going to spend the most effort?

Also... You make it sound like Google is some magical Oracle that will 
instantly answer any possible question. This is not actually the case. 
Google works very well for certain questions, and drastically less well 
for certain other questions. Sometimes it can take hours of hunting to 
get a useful answer out of Google. (Though probably not for the specific 
case in question.)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:490ae0c2$1@news.povray.org...

> You look at your PC. You have half a dozen codecs available. Which ones 
> are you going to spend most time investigating? The ones you've never 
> heard of? Or the ones you've heard about that are supposed to be good? 
> Where are you going to spend the most effort?

First I'd spend some time investigating what are considered to be good 
codecs, which ones are popular and which are seldom used, rather than 
relying on my own knowledge. If I have some I've never heard of (and if so, 
why would I have them at all), I'd do a little bit of investigating until I 
had a basic understanding of them

> Also... You make it sound like Google is some magical Oracle that will 
> instantly answer any possible question.

I never said that. I said that you should investigate, verify and confirm 
for yourself. If you search and can't find an answer, that's one thing, when 
you state something as a categorical truth and half a minute with google 
proves that it's completely false, that's quite another.

Searching's a skill that needs practice, it's not obvious first time what 
keywords are going to produce an answer. Sometimes it takes several 
searches, refining the terms each time based on what's returned and what's 
not.

fyi, I've had very few questions where I couldn't get an answer out from 
either google or a forum/newsgroup/mailing list on the particular subject. 
That's for work stuff, for stuff that I'm casually interested in, for 
game-related stuff and for information for my Masters thesis.

Post a reply to this message