Achurch

Difference (from prior author revision) (major diff, minor diff)

Changed: 1c1

achurch == Andrew Church. I use transcode primarily for converting home video (DV) and material recorded off-the-air to DVD or other convenient formats. I've contributed various minor patches to transcode, as well as the MMX version of the optimized memcpy routine in aclib/memcpy.s.

achurch == Andrew Church. I use transcode primarily for converting home video (DV) and material recorded off-the-air to DVD or other convenient formats. I've written the aclib acceleration library (the one in CVS HEAD, destined for 1.1.0) and contributed various minor patches to transcode; stuff I'm currently working on can be found at WorkingOn.

Added: 5a6

Added: 10a12,13

* pixel aspect ratio
* video codecs/DV

Removed: 13,40d15

Visual comparison (under construction for FFmpeg vs. mpeg2enc)

The following tables show a comparison of FFmpeg and mpeg2enc encoding of a high-motion scene (the source is interlaced TV).

Full images:
|| Codec ||3000 kbps||9000 kbps||
||Original image ||||[704x480 PNG]||
||FFmpeg (1-pass)||[704x480 PNG]||[704x480 PNG]||
||FFmpeg (2-pass)||[704x480 PNG]||[704x480 PNG]||
|| mpeg2enc ||[704x480 PNG]||[704x480 PNG]||

Note the distortion in the faces below. FFmpeg's 2-pass processing gives it a clear advantage at 3000 kbps, but even at 9000 kbps the lower half of the left face comes out slightly better with 2-pass FFmpeg.
|| Codec || 3000 kbps || 9000 kbps ||
||Original image |||| http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/original-1.png ||
||FFmpeg (1-pass)||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg1-3000-1.png ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg1-9000-1.png ||
||FFmpeg (2-pass)||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg2-3000-1.png ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg2-9000-1.png ||
|| mpeg2enc ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/mpeg2enc-3000-1.png ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/mpeg2enc-9000-1.png ||

Significant "blocking" can be seen here at 3000 kbps--note the "slips" every 16 scanlines or so. Again, 2-pass FFmpeg proves superior at 3000 kbps, but all three codecs perform just fine at 9000 kbps.
|| Codec || 3000 kbps || 9000 kbps ||
||Original image |||| http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/original-2.png ||
||FFmpeg (1-pass)||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg1-3000-2.png ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg1-9000-2.png ||
||FFmpeg (2-pass)||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg2-3000-2.png ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/ffmpeg2-9000-2.png ||
|| mpeg2enc ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/mpeg2enc-3000-2.png ||http://www.transcoding.org/ffmpeg_vs_mpeg2enc/mpeg2enc-9000-2.png ||

achurch == Andrew Church. I use transcode primarily for converting home video (DV) and material recorded off-the-air to DVD or other convenient formats. I've written the aclib acceleration library (the one in CVS HEAD, destined for 1.1.0) and contributed various minor patches to transcode; stuff I'm currently working on can be found at WorkingOn.

Pages I've written on the transcode wiki:

I also have a home page at http://achurch.org/index-e.html (completely unrelated to transcode).