Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Oracle Does Some Open-Source Good With TTM

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,396

    Default Oracle Does Some Open-Source Good With TTM

    Phoronix: Oracle Does Some Open-Source Good With TTM

    While Oracle is most often criticized since their acquisition of Sun Microsystems for shafting the open-source community, in particular for OpenOffice, MySQL, OpenSolaris, and other projects, not everything they do is bad for open-source and Linux. They have VirtualBox, various kernel developers, Chris Mason works for them on Btrfs, etc. They also still employ some graphics developers. One of these developers for some time now has been working on improving the GPU memory management situation in virtualized environments...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTgzNQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    MPEG-2, I wonder why? It's so inefficient, no one even stores actual dvd's on their HDD's any longer. One rather transcodes the dvd into xvid or h264 saving a lot of space while retaining pretty much same quality.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Because it is dead technology, it is simpler and easier to implement and probably does not have patent problems. It certainly is a valid project for anybody with interest in developing or learning video hardware acceleration.

    However, for practical usage by end users it provides no added benefit and Michael is completely right that is does not merit a separate post. Maybe some of it can be applied to other codecs...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,402

    Default

    ATSC and QAM still use MPEG2.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,212

    Default

    It's probably easier to debug problems with the video decoding than using a complicated h.264 video.

    Michael didn't mention this, but the reason it was rewritten was because the old one was GPL licensed and that had to go before the next Mesa release.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cl333r View Post
    MPEG-2, I wonder why? It's so inefficient, no one even stores actual dvd's on their HDD's any longer. One rather transcodes the dvd into xvid or h264 saving a lot of space while retaining pretty much same quality.
    Actually, I do simply rip the dvds, and leave them as isos. You get degraded quality with transcoding unfortunately, and while you can transcode a dvd with near imperceptible quality difference I don't know of a way to automate that since each dvd would need different options. That is something I really wish encoders did a better job with.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Actually, I do simply rip the dvds, and leave them as isos. You get degraded quality with transcoding unfortunately, and while you can transcode a dvd with near imperceptible quality difference I don't know of a way to automate that since each dvd would need different options. That is something I really wish encoders did a better job with.
    Options as in transcode options? Doesnt the 264 high profile in handbrake always give excellent results?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crispy View Post
    Options as in transcode options? Doesnt the 264 high profile in handbrake always give excellent results?
    Yes it usually gives good results, but if you set it for good enough quality you can easily end up with a 4GB transcode, and at that point I'd rather just have the easier to decode and original mpeg2.
    to have really good quality at significently lower bitrate you have to set alot of custom options. If you read pretty much any of the documentation they'll say the same.
    Transcode some video with certain settings.
    Look at it.
    Change the settings.
    Compare.
    Repeat.

    Obviously there are things you can say generally about certain types of content (animation being a classic example), but that is not generally the case.

    Of course, if you aren't planning on watching the material on a large screen that is already doing upscaling (maybe a phone or something), then the artifacts added aren't a big deal, and the smaller size counts for alot more.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •