[MEncoder-users] new doom9 codec comparission

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:24:59PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:35:16PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:07:24PM +0100, Matthias Wieser wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I wish I had access to a dual-core/dual-processor machine so I could
> > > > actually provide some better performance numbers. The reason my
> > > > argument is so shaky is that I can't get the actual data, just what
> > > > "ought to" happen.
> > > 
> > > Some actual benchmarks:
> > > http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/11/185212&mode=thread/
> > > Athlon 64, 2.4GHz
> > >   Single core: 22minutes
> > >   Dual core: 17minutes
> > 
> > nice, but maybe that should be tested on the same OS doom9 will be using?
> 
> in any case, the interesting comparison in doom9's test is which codec
> is _better_, not which one is _faster_. i'm sure they'll evaluate
> both, but NO SANE ENCODER deciding which codec to use will choose
> based on speed; they'll choose based on maximum achievable quality.
> 
> fyi my machine encodes at 1-8 fps even with only modest settings, and
> i'm perfectly happy with that. you only encode once. you have to watch
> the hideous artifacts you created every time you watch the movie. thus
> spend the time and do it right!

btw, to clarify: if an option gives only minor improvement in psnr or
visual quality and increases encoding time by an order of magnitude,
it may be ok to drop it (e.g. qns, perhaps?). on the other hand,
threads will give at MOST a 2x performance boost (and in actuality
maybe 20-25%) and significantly lower psnr.

yes i hate threads in general, but this argument is not about threads.
it's about the need to showcase lavc at its full quality, not
foolishly optimized for encoding speed at the expense of quality.

rich