Comments for autobuilds log http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:26:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on About by Buy Facebook Fans http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/about/comment-page-1/#comment-250 Buy Facebook Fans Wed, 02 Nov 2011 04:38:27 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/?page_id=2#comment-250 <strong>Sites We Like...</strong> [...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]... Sites We Like…

[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…

]]> Comment on ffmpeg-r26055 swscale-r32676 OK by EdVCast http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/18/ffmpeg-r26055-swscale-r32676-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-194 EdVCast Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:05:01 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/18/ffmpeg-r26055-swscale-r32676-ok/#comment-194 Thanks for the info on the last build Ramiro. I think i managed to tweak it a bit. -- I ran into something else though → Making a (AAC) 5.1 6 Channel Surround sound audio into a (2)channel Stereo is no longer supported - (Note: The change happened after build r12665 <- Thanks for the info on the last build Ramiro. I think i managed to tweak it a bit. — I ran into something else though → Making a (AAC) 5.1 6 Channel Surround sound audio into a (2)channel Stereo is no longer supported - (Note: The change happened after build r12665 <-

]]> Comment on ffmpeg-r26041 swscale-r32676 OK by admin http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-193 admin Sat, 18 Dec 2010 04:27:40 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/#comment-193 you're comparing different things here. please stick to only one command line, then try the builds using binary search and determine which was the first revision that started showing the slowdown. you’re comparing different things here. please stick to only one command line, then try the builds using binary search and determine which was the first revision that started showing the slowdown.

]]> Comment on ffmpeg-r26041 swscale-r32676 OK by EdVCast http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-192 EdVCast Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:28:50 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/#comment-192 Using FFmpeg Revision 26015 -- December 15 2010 From Divx/Xvid to (Mpeg4/AAC) ffmpeg -i Trail.avi -ab 128k -b 2560k -s 640x360 -vcodec mpeg4 -acodec aac -mbd rd -trellis 2 -subcmp 2 -cmp 2 -flags +mv4+aic Trail.mp4 Most versions encode at around the same speed using the top line -> if I try simplifying it to ↓↓↓ ffmpeg -i Trail.avi -ab 128k -b 2560k -s 640x360 Trail.mp4 --- it's when i see the Lag or slowness comparing it to any of the 2009 revisions. Almost 2x or 3x Using FFmpeg Revision 26015 — December 15 2010

From Divx/Xvid to (Mpeg4/AAC)

ffmpeg -i Trail.avi -ab 128k -b 2560k -s 640×360 -vcodec mpeg4 -acodec aac -mbd rd -trellis 2 -subcmp 2 -cmp 2 -flags +mv4+aic Trail.mp4

Most versions encode at around the same speed using the top line ->
if I try simplifying it to ↓↓↓

ffmpeg -i Trail.avi -ab 128k -b 2560k -s 640×360 Trail.mp4 —

it’s when i see the Lag or slowness comparing it to any of the 2009 revisions. Almost 2x or 3x

]]> Comment on ffmpeg-r26041 swscale-r32676 OK by ramiro http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-191 ramiro Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:13:06 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/#comment-191 stupid blog threw away my links binary search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search archived builds: http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/ffmpeg/mingw32/static/ stupid blog threw away my links
binary search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search
archived builds: http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/ffmpeg/mingw32/static/

]]> Comment on ffmpeg-r26041 swscale-r32676 OK by ramiro http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-190 ramiro Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:12:35 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/#comment-190 do a binary search using the archived builds and tell us the exact revision that started showing the slow down, and also tell us the entire command line you're using and the full and uncut output. do a binary search using the archived builds and tell us the exact revision that started showing the slow down, and also tell us the entire command line you’re using and the full and uncut output.

]]> Comment on ffmpeg-r26041 swscale-r32676 OK by EdVCast http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-189 EdVCast Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:07:00 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/16/ffmpeg-r26041-swscale-r32676-ok/#comment-189 I've noticed with newer versions of FFmpeg created in 2010 - it takes about 2 to 3x times longer to complete a video conversion. Even when using the exact command line settings for bitrate / FPS etc..- is that normal ? I've only tested it with Mpeg4 / AAC so far I’ve noticed with newer versions of FFmpeg created in 2010 - it takes about 2 to 3x times longer to complete a video conversion. Even when using the exact command line settings for bitrate / FPS etc..- is that normal ?
I’ve only tested it with Mpeg4 / AAC so far

]]> Comment on About by David http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/about/comment-page-1/#comment-188 David Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:13:03 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/?page_id=2#comment-188 I think you can access it from the wordpress dashboard ;) Here it is: david.fauthoux at gmail dot com I think you can access it from the wordpress dashboard ;)
Here it is: david.fauthoux at gmail dot com

]]> Comment on libx264 updated to r1834 by ramiro http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/2010/12/15/libx264-updated-to-r1834/comment-page-1/#comment-187 ramiro Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:19:22 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/?p=855#comment-187 I am unable to measure any performance difference higher than stddev. And so is the guy who wrote this w32thread stuff for x264. Here are my results from april: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/107952/focus=108115 If anyone can tell me a solid and proven to be correct way to test performance/scalability with threads I can do it (only in March though =). Btw I'm using you guys as a guinea pigs, if anyone sees a big performance difference now, it's because of this change, so please let me know. I am unable to measure any performance difference higher than stddev. And so is the guy who wrote this w32thread stuff for x264. Here are my results from april: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/107952/focus=108115

If anyone can tell me a solid and proven to be correct way to test performance/scalability with threads I can do it (only in March though =).

Btw I’m using you guys as a guinea pigs, if anyone sees a big performance difference now, it’s because of this change, so please let me know.

]]> Comment on About by ramiro http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/about/comment-page-1/#comment-186 ramiro Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:13:45 +0000 http://ffmpeg.arrozcru.org/autobuilds/blog/?page_id=2#comment-186 you haven't left your e-mail address =) you haven’t left your e-mail address =)

]]>