[MPlayer-users] Re: mencoder /mplayer bugs

[Fabio Papa]

On Thursday 12 June 2003 00:34, Jonathan Rogers wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
>
> Fabio Papa wrote:
> > Sorry if this is unrelated, but isn't transcode a hell of a lot slower
> > compared to mencoder? I ask this because I already tryed it out and was
> > huge slow, but I never compiled it myself, I only used a binary version.
> > Are there some tricks/advantages in compiling myself?
> > Thanks!
>
> No, in my experience it is not "a hell of a lot slower." I haven't done
> any careful experiments, but nothing I've seen suggests it differs by
> more than about a frame per second, if any. Remember that most of the
> time spent transcoding is in the encoder. If you use the same encoder
> with the same options and same video input to both mencoder and
> transcode, it'll go at about the same speed. Of course, some significant
> time is spent in the decoder, but mencoder and transcode may be using
> the same decoders for DVD input anyway. They probably are using
> different resizers, so there may be a difference in efficiency there,
> but that may not be very significant compared to encoding time,
> depending on encoder options.

Yeah, you're right, my bad. I got a look to my scripts I was using with 
transcode and I was forgotting I was trying to produce MPEG2 files at that 
time. Which, of course, involved mpeg2enc which _is_ slow as hell! Anyway, 
apart from the approx. seek, there is no difference encoding with either of 
the two, so I'll stick with mencoder for now. Thanks!



>
> Jonathan Rogers
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTFM!!!  http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/DOCS
> Search:  http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/cgi-bin/htsearch
> http://mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-users

-- 
Fabio Papa
Engineering division
Machining Centers Manufacturing S.p.A.
viale F. e G. Celaschi 19 - Vigolzone (PC) Italy