Mailing List Archive

Low CPU settings?
What combination of encoder settings will give me lower CPU utilization,
even at the expense of larger files? Right now, I'm running at:

320x240 resolution
RTjpeg quality 170
luma filter 0
chroma filter 0

[Using the CVS version.] This is on a PIII-450. I'd like to up the
resolution (my gf's complaining about the quality); I've got disk space
to spare, so being able to trade off CPU for disk would be a win for me.

Thanks,

- Ian
Re: Low CPU settings? [ In reply to ]
i doubt you can trade off cpu usage for disk space and get better quality

Aren't you already using the lowest workable resolution?

A quick search in the archives yields a discussion on this
The thread was called Box Processor Limits

Here is an excerpt from one of the mesages :

> You're better off with more
> raster lines so I'd also prefer 320x480 over 640x240 for
> that virtual size. So, a better list from high to low
> would be:
>
> 720x480 640x480 480x480 352x480 320x480 480x240 352x240 320x240
>

would a Socket 370 Celeron 1.4A GHz fit in there
or maybe a Celeron 1.0 GHz
it would fix the problem for about $60
I take it it's a small price to pay to keep the girlfriend happy

anyone know
what is a lowest powered celeron is,
that would do 480x480 or even 320x480 ?

rt


On February 6, 2003 07:23 am, Ian Goldberg wrote:
> What combination of encoder settings will give me lower CPU utilization,
> even at the expense of larger files? Right now, I'm running at:
>
> 320x240 resolution
> RTjpeg quality 170
> luma filter 0
> chroma filter 0
>
> [Using the CVS version.] This is on a PIII-450. I'd like to up the
> resolution (my gf's complaining about the quality); I've got disk space
> to spare, so being able to trade off CPU for disk would be a win for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Ian
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users@snowman.net
> http://www.snowman.net/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: Low CPU settings? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:24:30 -0500, Risto Treksler wrote:

> i doubt you can trade off cpu usage for disk space and get better
> quality
>
> Aren't you already using the lowest workable resolution?

At the compression level I'm using, yes. I'm wondering if there are
settings which will do less compression, and so take less CPU time,
but have the resulting data stream be larger.

For example, turning off audio compression has this property (I'm
already doing that). If the raw image data were stored to (an
unreasonably fast) disk, it would have this property.

When you increase the quality setting of the RTjpeg or other video
codecs, does the CPU (a) increase its work trying to find more accurate
representations of the original image, or (b) decrease its work by not
trying as hard to remove data?

I suppose I'll just end up trying a bunch of things, but I thought
someone might just know.

Thanks,

- Ian