Home arrow Forum arrow Fairuse Unofficial Forums arrow Support arrow Benchmarking Fairuse... 0.42e OR 0.43c ???
Benchmarking Fairuse... 0.42e OR 0.43c ???
November 21, 2008, 04:11:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Benchmarking Fairuse... 0.42e OR 0.43c ???  (Read 2642 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Eymerich_2004
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


View Profile
« on: May 30, 2004, 05:36:43 PM »

Hi!

I\'m actually using this version on two different PC (a P4 3.0 and a P4 2.6),
and I\'m very unsure to pass definitively on the new ver.
I normally backup live concert and TV series like ST:TNG and ST:DS9. I\'ve made some \"experimentation\" making some backup of the same DVD with the two ver.  I\'ve used the same parameters and the visual (and audio) results are that 0.42 is IMHO slightly better for music stuff like concerts and the new version is more inclined to movie stuff...
I wish to read on this board more experience like mine. Maybe I\'m wrong and perhaps it\'s only a sensation not based on real facts.
Ciao
Eymerich
Logged
afonic
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2004, 05:39:39 PM »

I *think* that the new version (0.43c) is a little slower than the 0.42e one. I had around 44fps with the older version and I have around 36fps with the new one.
Maybe there is a change in the default codec settings?
Logged
ump
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673

Fairuse Wizard Developer


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2004, 06:01:31 PM »

There were no changes that could affect encoding speed between 0.42e and 0.43c.

Please keep in mind that such a \"benchmark\" is only valid if you run exactly the same DVD conversion (this means same resolution and same target size too) on the same machine, with the same background activity, of course.
Logged
Eymerich_2004
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2004, 03:57:28 AM »

Ehm... probably the word benchmarking was used wrong. I\'m not speaking about speed but quality. I\'ve the sensation that 0.42 is slightly better than 0.43 on the audio quality (mp3-192).
Besweet missing???
Ciao
Eymerich
Logged
ump
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673

Fairuse Wizard Developer


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2004, 06:17:10 AM »

BeSweet is \"only\" a frontend calling the DLL versions of other popular software. All I did was to replace BeSweet with the corresponding software, which means azid, lame, and so on. Thus, the audio quality should be exactly the same. Smiley
Logged
Eymerich_2004
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2004, 07:25:30 AM »

Perfect! Probably was only an \"hearing\" sensation Cheesy
Ciao
Eymerich
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.095 seconds with 17 queries.