[MEncoder-users] Flashvideo for YouTube using mencoder

[Rich Felker]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:09AM -0800, Phil Ehrens wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:10:17PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > L'octidi 8 ventôse, an CCXVI, Phil Ehrens a écrit :
> > > > Certainly, it could be 100% spatially accurate, but it will
> > > > still be *temporally* inaccurate,
> > > 
> > > I insist: if there are two consecutive identical frames, then, unless the
> > > codec stupidly decides to make the second one an I-frame, the second one has
> > > exactly the same quality as the first one at the cost of exactly 0 bits.
> > > 
> > > >				    because there is no actual
> > > > data representing the timeslice for that frame.
> > > 
> > > I am not quite sure what you mean here. There is no data for the frame, but
> > > there is for the timeslice: either by the multiplexer format of by the
> > > timestamp of the next frame, the decoding system knows there is a frame
> > > without bits here.
> > 
> > This guy is just an idiot who speaks with magical terms which he does
> > not understand. It's like the morons who think solid gold speaker
> > cables give their digital audio "more body" or "better color". They
> > can't be reasoned with because they talk with terms that have no
> > meaning; that's the case with "*temporally* inaccurate" here. I
> > suggest we just ban the moron from the list after the next idiotic
> > post of this type.
> > 
> > And to Phil: if you want to discuss, you must DEFINE any term you want
> > to use that otherwise seems nonsensical. But I think all you want to
> > do is troll and continue claiming you're right about a topic you
> > obviously know NOTHING about.
> 
> Geez. And here I thought I was explaining why P-frame size didn't
> matter. Oh well...

Did I accidentally target my comments at the wrong person?

Rich