RE: [transcode-users] Script Posting?

["Jeff Hyche" <jwhyche@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh I see what you are talking about.  You're talking about having it so many
MB per hour based on the size of the video based in time.  For some insane
reason I thought you meant having the machine do so many MB per hour then
stopping. 

Instead of doing it per hour though I think better results would get you if
you did it so many MB per minute.  My rule of thumb is 10 MB of file per
every 1 min of video.  I have no reason where I got that from and I actually
can't remember if I've ever done anything like that.

Would not the bpp option that I 'm thinking of do just about the same thing?

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: transcode-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:transcode-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Ehrens
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:11 PM
To: transcode Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [transcode-users] Script Posting?

 
>> I wonder if it wouldn't be preferable for the file size
>> option to be taken as a scaling factor, i.e. 600Mb per hour
>> of material instead of per input file.
>> 
>> 
>
>Jeff Hyche wrote:
> I have not thought of that, and I'm not exactly sure how to do it.  I'm
also
> not sure of how much better it would be than what I'm doing.  One thing
that
> I'm thinking for doing is instead of file size, do a bpp setting.  If you
> don't input a file size the program will generate a bitrate based on the
bpp
> ration being around 0.2.

fsize=`bc << _EOF
$seconds*$mbytes/3600
_EOF
`