on topic,. ...

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Measuring quality is silly.  Most things, just stick the bitrate up high, and the quality will be good.  The thing to compare for is efficiency, ie quality/size ratio.
Not slower?  I wouldn't make that statement so soon - not everyone has a GTX295 graphics card.

Was't the 295gtx a dual gpu sli 200 card,. and is't badaboom not using sli and only 1 gpu for trancoding,.!>? i guess the new "cheap!!" geforce 250 might even trancode faster then my gtx295,...

For a video noob like me,. i get "good quality/fast/easy" video for my PSP,. ;p

To make a nice compare between GPU & CPU transcoding/encoding,.

prices

encode settings >> source file & output file,..

?????

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Lol.  Of course, it also depends on the content...  Video game footage seems to be one of the hardest things to compress.  Visualisation dumps (ie the visualiser that shows when playing music) is perhaps the worst thing to try to compress.

Why would a program compress visualiser?

Quote:<Dark_Shikari> the marketing seems to be working

...

(This post was last modified: 18/03/2009 02:55 AM by Vegetano1.)