The Following User Says Thank You to VulcanRidr For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-06-09
, 16:23
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#2
|
|
2009-06-09
, 17:43
|
Posts: 473 |
Thanked: 141 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Virginia, USA
|
#3
|
If you're re-encoding DivX files, tablet-encode calculates the "bitrate per pixel" of the original video and ensures that it doesn't exceed that (within a margin of error) based on the profile selected.
That's why you're not seeing much difference between the high-level presets. At the resolutions the video is being scaled to, the bitrates for those presets are far too high: it'd just end up encoding existing encoding artifacts, rather than the video.
The heuristic for determining the resultant bitrate seems to be erring too much on the side of caution in your case, though.
Hope that helps,
Andrew
|
2009-06-09
, 17:50
|
|
Posts: 546 |
Thanked: 85 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Winnipeg, Canada
|
#4
|
|
2009-06-09
, 20:09
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#5
|
Is there a way to fix this? I copied the original file over and playback is very choppy. The one made using tablet-encode was smooth.
* 1.1
Compare to some other videos which I did on a laptop (that I do not have any longer) which made a 101 MB original file size into a 51MB file for the NIT, and that was, as I recall, encoded with the mplayer preset.
|
2009-06-09
, 21:19
|
Posts: 70 |
Thanked: 5 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#6
|
at this point, it does not appear that re-encoding them is worth the CPU time. Several of the files are larger than the originals, and the others are within 10% of the same size.
All of my original files are in .avi [divx] format, some from DVD with a size of 624x256 and others from TV capture (640x480). The output is in FMP4.
The first three movies are from DVD:
Original/N810
700M/782M
700M/579M
711M/597M
The TV captures:
695M/604M
695M/569M
694M/732M
Is this normal behavior for re-encoding video? Is there a way to get the files significantly smaller? Because at this point, it does not appear that re-encoding them is worth the CPU time. Several of the files are larger than the originals, and the others are within 10% of the same size.
Can someone advise me?
Thanks,
--vr