Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
15th September 2005, 21:14 | #42 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14
|
For me:
2nd pass filesize set to 8,192kB results: 8,164 2nd pass filesize set to 12,288kB results: 9,116 2nd pass filesize set to 10,240kB results: 9,116 2nd pass filesize set to 20,480kB results: 9,116 2nd pass filesize set to 5,120kB results: 5,136 I tried many different filesizes! It seems that if you set a filesize that ffdshow thinks is much more than needed, then it cut it down to what it believes that is better, but the quality of video is always bad!!!! |
15th September 2005, 21:34 | #43 | Link |
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 6,781
|
Do you understand the meaning of "saturation"? 9,116 KB seems to be the size for a constant lowest-possible quantization, therefore maximum quality possible. So, try to compare with CQ more if the results are similar -- if not, then it may indeed be wrong.
Last edited by LigH; 15th September 2005 at 21:36. |
15th September 2005, 21:47 | #44 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
|
|
15th September 2005, 22:37 | #46 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14
|
Hey, I am not a native english speaker either!!!
I didn't misunderstood you! Ok, let's see!!! Source Source -------------------------------------- Filesize Set to 20,480 Actual filesize 20,496 encode1 -------------------------------------- Filesize Set to 25,600 Actual filesize 23,368 encode2 -------------------------------------- Filesize Set to 30,720 Actual filesize 23,368 encode3 Yes, the last two results (which have the same exact actual filesize) are similar! It seems that we have the maximum quality possible! Then the only thing I've got to say is that I am really dissapointed from the quality! The first time I saw all this detail to go away, I thought that I've done something wrong!!!! Last edited by Chaos Creator; 15th September 2005 at 22:44. |
15th September 2005, 22:53 | #48 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
|
|
16th September 2005, 10:25 | #49 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14
|
I tried to make some videos with ffmpeg2theora 0.15 with (--videoquality 10) and the video quality I got was really great! I think now that there must be something wrong with ffdshow. Maybe in the 2-pass mode it provides! Ffdshow doesn't keep any quality, even at highest filesize I set to it. Ffmpeg2theora gave me great results!!!
|
20th September 2005, 17:23 | #50 | Link |
李姗倩 Lǐ Shān Qiàn
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,340
|
celtic_druid's 20050920 is out.
I got 500GB/mo bw for this mirror, but (it's a darn cheap server and) might be slower. http://ffdshow.faireal.net/ This server might be faster, tho the bw is more limited here: http://m17n.cool.ne.jp/freeware/mpc/ Last edited by Liisachan; 21st September 2005 at 00:06. |
21st September 2005, 01:02 | #53 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 630
|
I wouldn't haste too much to upgrade to a newer build (0920).
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index...61&atid=471489 I experienced problems with h264 playback, and according to log, several fixes were applied to that part of the ffdshow, as i recall. Maybe it's only due to some optimisations not working or so (athlon xp cpu). But 0920 does play same video fragment encoded in avc noticable slower than 0909 does (or at least on my system it did), so I rolled back to 0909 atm. |
21st September 2005, 12:54 | #55 | Link |
*****
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,647
|
Here are some alternative compilations:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QZCV2JJ8 Comments on stability and speed are very welcome. Don't forget to mention your cpu brand, type and clockspeed. |
21st September 2005, 13:56 | #56 | Link |
Pain and suffering
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,337
|
Mirrors aren't really a problem.
I got plenty on x264.nl ffdshow-20050920.exe is a big file again, i assume its ICL? Can you compile a MSVC71.exe version again too? I really prefer stability over speed. Creating x264 revision 295 test files now (.avi/.mp4/.mkv/.264) |
21st September 2005, 13:57 | #57 | Link | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 217
|
Quote:
|
|
21st September 2005, 14:41 | #58 | Link |
李姗倩 Lǐ Shān Qiàn
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,340
|
clsid: How can I download the RAR file from that page? Nothing happens for me. I'm on Firefox and JavaScript is enabled (but Flash is disabled).
bob0r: My problem is huge sites such as betanews.com direct-link to my poor pages, hogging the servers' resources. They should link to powerful servers like yours. I got a cheap virtual dedicated server for this but it's not powerful enough. Maybe I should get a real dedicated server. big ouch money-wise... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|