ildefonso.camargo at gmail
May 3, 2012, 7:29 PM
Post #8 of 11
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Roger Horner <mythtvuser1818 [at] gmail> wrote:
Re: Safe way to downgrade from 0.25 back to 0.24?
[In reply to]
> On 2012-05-03, at 7:10 PM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa <ildefonso.camargo [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Michael T. Dean <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 10:40 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>>>>>> So.... what is involved on downgrading from 0.25 to 0.24? (without
>>>>>> losing recent recordings, of course).
>>>>> You would need to restore the backup you made before upgrading and
>>>>> then import any new recordings manually.
>>> Specifically importing new recordings into the Video Library (formerly
>>>>> That's the only supported
>>>> sigh.... time-consuming..... it is a hard decision.... eventually,
>>>> I'll go back to 0.25, so... invested several hours downgrading from
>>>> 0.24 looks like a bad idea :( , maybe I'll just live with my pvr150,
>>>> and wasting lots of disk space, until I get some more free time to fix
>>>> things on 0.25.
>>>> On the other issue: is there anybody else having issues with
>>>> transcoding? (maybe I should open a new thread for that, right?).
>>> FWIW, disk space is pretty cheap (even with the price increase after the
>>> Thai flooding). A 1TB HDD could store a /ton/ of 2GB/hr MPEG-2 SDTV
>>> recordings from an ivtv device. And, FWIW, the transcoding supported by
>>> mythtranscode--to MPEG-4 ASP in an NUV container, and not H.264 in any
>>> "useful" container--doesn't really provide useful space savings, meaning
>>> you're better off keeping the video in the original MPEG-2 format. You'd
>>> only want to transcode your ivtv recordings if you have a constrained device
>>> that doesn't support MPEG-2--and even then, you'd want to use something
>>> other than mythtranscode since that device won't support NUV container.
>> For the about same quality, mpeg4 will require half the disk space.
> Only if you use H.264, which mythtranscode doesn't support. Mythtranscode's mpeg4 files are about the same size as mpeg2 files. You will have to use ffmpg or handbrake to generate h.264.
Nope, h264 is just better (well, ok, a lot better, and also A LOT
slower at encoding), but mpeg4 is clearly superior to mpeg2 (thus: I
use it to record from frame grabbers). Trust me, I did A LOT of tests
with video codecs a few years ago, including: mpeg2, mpeg4, mjpeg,
Theora, DivX, xvid, x264 (same as h264?, well, I used x264) (as far as
I can remember). All in all, x264 is really good (best for now?),
mpeg4 is good specially with 2-pass (and relatively fast), and mpeg2,
well, it is good and proven, but I when given the choice, I would
certainly use mpeg4 over mpeg2 any day.
>> Only downside here (and now) is that after the transcode mpeg4 file
>> looks ugly (but that's not supposed to be like that)...
> Agreed. I have used mythtranscode on both 0.24 and 0.23 and it looks bad on both when the source is interlaced (horrible combing) unless you do a lossless encode (about all it is good for).
Interesting, so... maybe try to make mythtranscode deinterlace before
transcoding would be a good idea (now, I wonder why direct record to
mpeg4 looks so good, and yes: interlaced, whereas transcoding from
interlaced mpeg2 to mpeg4 looks so bad).
> Sent from my iPod
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv