[MEncoder-users] Fwd: Questions on Mencoder performace

[larrystotler at netscape.net]

-----Original Message-----
From: RC <rcooley at spamcop.net>

>No "turbo" ?  That should really speed-up the first pass, without
>noticable quality drop.

I tried the turbo option when I started a file a little while ago.  It 
was averaging about 13-14 at first.  It's 66% done at the moment and 
it's at 16fps.  owever, that won't help the 2nd pass, which is why I 
was looking for guidance.  I can get a newer MB and some DDR and 
overclock this 2.4 to 3.2(already tested stable on a friend's machine) 
but don't want to speed the money if there won't be that much of a 
difference. If I could get around 25-30, then it would be wortth it.  
But getting less than 20 isn't.

>>   I prefer XviD since it seems to work better on slow cpus(my kids
>>   have
>> 300-400Mhz laptops, and Xvid doesn't drop frames that bad but X264 
did

>Xvid is the "proper" name of an MPEG-4 codec.  So is lavc (FMP4), Divx,
>etc.  They should all have approximately the same properties, and any 
of
>them can playback videos created with another.

>H.264, on the other hand, is a completely different codec than regular
>MPEG-4.  Newer, higher quality, and much more CPU-intensive.

My friend with the Xeon seems to thing that H.264 is better, but I've 
seen problems on my slower machines.  I sometimes get a message on my 
Dual Xeon 500 that "Your machine is too slow to play this", but never 
see any frame drops.  There have been many debates that I have read 
about how one is better than the other.  I just want to standardize on 
1 and not worry about it after that.

Thanx.
___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com