On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:50:08AM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > I sure would love to achieve the kind of quality that I frequently > download from a.b.m. Is anyone getting this kind of quality? I dunno what you're downloading from a.b.m., but the stuff I downloaded from the Babylon 5 group is, although fairly good, nowhere near as good as what I'm capturing with my DC10+ and zoran/mjpegtools. I've been at this only a few months, though, and am having trouble imagining what kind of jerkiness you're referring to. I'm entirely unfamiliar with all the tools you're using. With the packages I'm using, I generally find out if there's a problem with the capture before I invest the time in encoding it: either lavrec reports too many dropped frames for the result to be acceptable, or xlav barfs on the .avi when I make up the editlist, or the encoding itself reports errors with the input stream. If none of those warns me about anything and the MPEG2 file I create has problems, running mplayer on the .avi files usually helps me find what actually happened. FWIW, it was a long row to hoe getting to this point. I seem to have a strange conflux of hardware which has been temperamental about working together under what qualifies as "extreme conditions", and sometimes I've had to upgrade some software pieces while downgrading others. Recently I tried to retrace that path, from capture card to sound card to IDE eccentricities to NICs to capture software to encoding software, and finally came to the conclusion that I took too many twists and turns too quickly, and took too few notes, to accurately depict how I finally did it. Once I actually got everything working, though, the worst I usually experience is an out-of-sync problem, which in my case is most often due to a drag on nfs while I'm reading the file, and not in the file itself. But then, I'm notorious for pushing my systems to the brink, loadwise. <grin> Sorry I can't be more help, but I did want to let you know that quality IS possible. Donna. pudge@xxxxxxxxxx
