Invisible wrote:
> But how on earth do you get an answer 
> to something like "what's the most popular Z?" 

http://google.com/search?q=what+is+the+most+popular+codec

> Just the other day I was trying to figure out the relative speed of 
> various CPU arithmetic operations, and I couldn't find anything useful 
> with Google (as evidenced by my asking here).

That's the sort of thing where you need to know what the answer looks 
like in order to find it, methinks. If you don't know the term used for 
spec sheets, you're going to get too many odd hits on relative speeds of 
CPUs.

> So yeah, there's a pretty huge sea of questions that I couldn't get 
> Google to answer. It's not an Oracle, it's just a search engine.

That searches answers, not questions. Keep that in mind. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Now here's the thing. Google is very good at answering "what is X?" and
> to some extent "how do I do Y?". But how on earth do you get an answer
> to something like "what's the most popular Z?" Google can't tell you
> that. Only *people* can tell you that.

Google searches the WWW. Finding things *people* put there.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:07:17 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Now here's the thing. Google is very good at answering "what is X?" and
> to some extent "how do I do Y?". But how on earth do you get an answer
> to something like "what's the most popular Z?" Google can't tell you
> that. Only *people* can tell you that.

Try putting "popular video encoders" in the Google search box.  The links 
that come up (just on a quick overview) don't say "this is the most 
popular", but they do give some useful pointers.

> So yeah, there's a pretty huge sea of questions that I couldn't get
> Google to answer. It's not an Oracle, it's just a search engine.

Yes, and if you learn how to speak the language the search engine knows, 
it is a very powerful tool for learning stuff.

With the search terms suggested above (without the quotes), the fifth hit 
is a Wikipedia article on Video Codecs; item 3 in the TOC on that page is 
"Common used standards and codecs" and gives a good overview of each of 
the most popular codecs out there.

For example:

"MPEG-1 Part 2: Used for Video CDs, and also sometimes for online video. 
If the source video quality is good and the bitrate is high enough, VCD 
can look slightly better than VHS. To exceed VHS quality, a higher 
resolution would be necessary. However, to get a fully compliant VCD 
file, bitrates higher than 1150 kbit/s and resolutions higher than 352 x 
288 should not be used. When it comes to compatibility, VCD has the 
highest compatibility of any digital video/audio system. Very few DVD 
players do not support VCD, but they all inherently support the MPEG-1 
codec. Almost every computer in the world can also play videos using this 
codec. In terms of technical design, the most significant enhancements in 
MPEG-1 relative to H.261 were half-pel and bi-predictive motion 
compensation support. MPEG-1 supports only progressive scan video."

Now, knowing what VHS video looks like, that gives a good idea as to what 
sort of quality to expect out of it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:07:17 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Just the other day I was trying to figure out the relative speed of
> various CPU arithmetic operations, and I couldn't find anything useful
> with Google (as evidenced by my asking here).

Search with "cpu speed arithmetic" - hit numbers 4&6 seem like they might 
be relevant.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now, knowing what VHS video looks like, that gives a good idea as to what 
> sort of quality to expect out of it.

Yeah. Just so folks understand, MPEG1 was designed to be delivered over 
a T1 speed link, which is the same speed as a 1x CD drive. You can't 
really expect too much out of 24 voice channels or one high-quality 
uncompressed audio stream if you're trying to deliver video. :)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:19:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now, knowing what VHS video looks like, that gives a good idea as to
>> what sort of quality to expect out of it.
> 
> Yeah. Just so folks understand, MPEG1 was designed to be delivered over
> a T1 speed link, which is the same speed as a 1x CD drive. You can't
> really expect too much out of 24 voice channels or one high-quality
> uncompressed audio stream if you're trying to deliver video. :)

Yup. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Yeah. Just so folks understand, MPEG1 was designed to be delivered over 
> a T1 speed link, which is the same speed as a 1x CD drive. You can't 
> really expect too much out of 24 voice channels or one high-quality 
> uncompressed audio stream if you're trying to deliver video. :)

Really? That's interesting; I was under the impression that you can use 
MPEG1 at any arbitrary bitrate.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Since apparently every other user on the planet doesn't have any of these 
>> problems, apparently I'm just too stupid to work it out...
>
> Or you haven't read tutorials that they have

Or used one of the many GUIs for the command-line encoders that provide a 
wide variety of configuration presets.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> Since apparently every other user on the planet doesn't have any of 
>>> these problems, apparently I'm just too stupid to work it out...
>>
>> Or you haven't read tutorials that they have
> 
> Or used one of the many GUIs for the command-line encoders that provide 
> a wide variety of configuration presets.

The tool I was using *had* a GUI. With 50,000 options on it. None of 
which appeared to affect image quality. (E.g., increasing the bitrate or 
the "quality" settings made little to no difference.)

Post a reply to this message

> The tool I was using *had* a GUI. With 50,000 options on it. None of which 
> appeared to affect image quality. (E.g., increasing the bitrate or the 
> "quality" settings made little to no difference.)

Try XVid4PSP, it's free and so far I have never even needed to change any 
advanced settings.  It has presets with names for each format.  If you 
choose the format as plain AVI, under video encoding you can choose options 
like "FFV1 Lossless" or "xVid HQ Ultra" or "x264 HQ Ultra" etc.  Under 
format you can also choose MP4 Mpeg1 Mpeg2 etc, it really is quite easy to 
use.

It also accepts a huge range of input formats, including VOB if the "open 
file" dialog box is anything to go by.

And of course if you feel like tinkering (I have never needed to), you can 
go and edit the details of each preset.

Post a reply to this message