The mpeg difference -- Suave's Celebrity Artwork

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:38:51 11/07/02 Thu
Author: Suave
Subject: The mpeg difference
In reply to: Alpha_Wolf 's message, "Congrats on new PC Suave." on 21:00:21 11/06/02 Wed

A 20 second mpeg used to take about 6 minutes to encode, now it takes about 1 minute. This is a great productivity boost, especially since I usually do multiple encodings to get the quality/size ratio right.

Christina Aguilera often goes too far these days, but I thought this outfit was quite tasteful. She also used to have a weight problem (i.e. too thin) but she was looking a lot healthier in my mpeg, which is great.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Re: The mpeg difference -- Alpha_Wolf, 13:02:31 11/07/02 Thu

OMG! 6 mins to make a small 20 sec clip?? Jeeze i did'nt think it took so much effort to make a decent clip. 20sec - 1min ratio is Very good indeed for a improvement. What codec do you encode with suave?? Also do you think you could make .mov clips as well or instead of .mpg?? As we all know how much better quicktime player is over windows media player for getting caps from. Im thinking i'll do mine in 2 or 3 diff. flavours. As my card's software can record into 6 or 7 diff. formats. Including mov , mpg, mpg2, mpg4 and dvix. Im still thinking bout it tho.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Why I use mpeg -- Suave, 09:39:48 11/08/02 Fri

Okay that might have been a bit of an exaggeration - a 20 second clip takes about 40 seconds to encode now (not 1 minute), because the improved quality of the original means I don't have to hit it with so many filters.

As for your questions, mpegs don't have codecs. I use MPEG1 because everyone can play them without additional software, unlike MPEG2, QuickTime or DivX. Besides, these proprietory formats offer little improvement in quality for the same file size. So until someone comes up with something twice as good as MPEG1 and makes it license free, I (and all other celelbrity artists) will stick with good old MPEG1.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Why I use mpeg -- Alpha_wolf, 10:29:40 11/08/02 Fri

Heh uh suave mpeg needs additional software to play it too. It's called windows media player. but lucky for everyone it comes with your OS (windows). LOL. And yes i agree none are really better quality wise, But quicktime (.mov) offers something really good that WMP does'nt have. Frame by frame playback. Which excellent for getting caps from. For some stupid reason WMP does'nt offer this great feature. (yells abuse at MS) But quicktime can easily convert mpegs for playing in it, so i guess theres no real reason to change. d:-D As for dvix which offers better compression, it's not exactly a common format so i spose that's not a choice either. Damm i just wrote all that for nothing huh? lol.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why I use mpeg -- Frankster, 23:40:32 11/09/02 Sat

Hey Suave,

Those MPEG1 files - are they VCD compatible? Your mpegs would look quite good played back on a DVD player :-)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Why I use mpeg -- Amrish Puri, 13:15:37 11/10/02 Sun

I find DivX presents better quality at an increased resolution compared to MPEG1 encoding.

You're capturing from a direct broadcast, right? Seems a shame that you're halving the resolution to less than that of VHS (albiet, with more stable colours) for the ease of compatibility.

If you provided DivX videos, people would have the option of re-encoding them to whatever format they desire (e.g. SVCD, VCD).

Then again, I understand that some people just want to 'click and play'. If bandwith wasn't a problem, you could offer both.

Oh well, at the end of the day you're providing a stellar service for a nice price.

And that's all that matters. Here, here!