CPU speed really mean better quality

[Quality's Proof]

zx50,

About the memory Ram requirement(s), I have been noticing posters' rigs spec.'s and on a rig that is working properly (no device conflicts, etc.), the actual "sweet spot for DVDShrink's processing is the amount of that which lies between 256mb and 512mb which is 384 mb if the posters' acounts are accurate. Of course some more is needed if one were to be surfing the net @ same time as movie is being deep analysed/encoded.

Of course many of us buy the Ram in multiples of 256 mb and hence some of us have overkill capability with 512 mb, 768 mb, or even more.

Thought I'd post that fact for the good people's edification.

[zx50]

??????? this is the DivX section.

[FireNtheHole]

I haven't tried it without psychovisual enhancements or set to slow mode. It's always enabled and set to fast. I'll give them a test and let ya know next weekend.

[Quality's Proof]

zx50,

??????????This is the DivX section.

Poster stated not new to dv. Processor speed and Ram do have an effect upon time to process data. As poster stated not new to dv and 'Shrink runs processor ~ 100% and uses much Ram, showed "sweet" spot for such. Processing is processing and no need for any of us to buy a Gig of Ram to process video when the processing of such @ 100% won't use ~ more than 400 mb.

Not "butting in", just had the answer to correct amount of real Ram required @ 100 % video processing @ up to ~ 2.0 Ghz or more.

[zx50]

No, i was'nt saying that you were butting in, just puzzled why you were going on about DVD shrink in the DivX section that was all.

[Quality's Proof]

Was referring to poster's stated understanding of dv and poster should have understood what was meant as I was posting to the original poster about process speed and necessary Ram really required for 100 % processing on most rigs, that's all.

BTW, you might be surprised @ the DivX postings in the DVDShrink sections, oh well, sometimes some "seemingly" unrelated facts, later lead to a better understanding, as some can attest.

[zx50]

Quality's Proof, you have just totally lost me on this one, i start by agreeing with uncasMS because i thought he was agreeing with you and now here you are trying to be sarcastic, oh i give up.

[UncasMS]

since i haven't posted any reply here, i'm not sure where i might have agreed

i'd like to ask you, however, to get back ON topic and not make matters worse

thx

[zx50]

Sorry uncasMS, damn, i meant megamachine. Can't think how the hell i got your name, your right you never posted a reply in here. Hmmn, baffling?

[Quality's Proof]

zx50,

No, wasn't being sarcastic. Never am sarcastic when trying to help solve a problem, unless sarcasm gets other(s) to the solution(s) sooner.

There's a running debate about Real Ram mb actually required for Processors up to ~ 2Ghz to do 100% video transfer, etc. and I did notice from the posts that on rigs working somewhat correctly 384 mb was real value. About 2 hours or so after such post another thread was started with a real minimum and 100 % Ram mb amount solution for their rig crashing. Uncanny? Reckon I have that formula, now, too. Lots of DivX users also back-up dvd's, so posting should help. Only trying to help and not trying to confuse.

You could read the thread in Off topiccs "Test your IQ" for some of the posts I made @ first, until we proved we are aware. You could have some fun on that thread. Last post on this thread I reckon as I don't want the posters to get off topic.

[zx50]

Yeah right, okay then.

[FireNtheHole]

OK, I picked out 2.5 minutes from a movie, and did three tests with the psychovisual thing. Off, slow, and fast.... I didn't notice a change in the quality at all, and they all took the same amount of time to encode. It took me exactly 19 hours to encode that 198 minute video; that averages out to 5.75 minutes for each minute of video to encode at slow mode. 650 kbit\sec works very well, too. I compared 650 to 800 and there wasn't much of a difference. There was a difference, but not much.

[zx50]

hhmmn, thanks, that's interresting. Although i read in the guide that the difference between fast and slow was that slow was less likely have artifacts than fast, but you would think that slow would have better quality