On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 12:49:03AM +0000, Stephen Davies wrote: > > > > > DIVX4rec takes too much CPU - 64% > > > > What kind of processor are you using? > > Athlon 1.13GHz. Nice. But are you saying that one DIVX4rec is taking 64% of a 1.13GHz Athlon? You must be grabbing a larger frame than I. I grab 320x240. > I haven't compared in detail - seems much the same though. Well, I will play with FFMPEGrec this evening then. > I must do some proper comparisons. But I think for the same bitrate, DIVX > looks better. That is/should be right. I would hate to think that a less convenient format, would suck up more CPU for a less than or equal to encoding. > I'm generally inclined to use mpeg1 with a generous bit rate for stuff > recorded for viewing once, and then reencode to DIVX4 anything to > be kept - two pass mencoder does a nice job for me... I have been thinking about this sort of approach too. Although, currently I am using 1800kbps DIVX4rec and am finding I am pruning from my video archive faster than I would like to (need more disk). I have been thinking about recording live with mpeg1 at higher bit rates (I have been thinking about something in the 3000kbps area -- what are you using for your "one time" MPEG1 bitrate?) which means I could play it while recording it, but as soon as it's done, re-encoding down to a lower Divx4 bitrate -- at a low cpu priority so as not to impact further capturing. b. -- Brian J. Murrell
