<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Aaron Whitehouse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@whitehouse.org.nz">lists@whitehouse.org.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thank you to Steve for the resolution suggestion - that seems to have<br>
cut the CPU usage by enough without destroying the quality. </blockquote><div><br>It worked for me so I figured it was worth a go. I read somewhere that the horizontal resolution of SD signals is actually very low - much lower than the 720x576 (or 704x576) that is theoretically possible.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I am still<br>
quite disappointed by how much CPU decoding MPEG-2 takes - it is<br>
significantly more than MPEG-4, which is a much more compressed format.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>The mpeg standards are designed with decoding requirements in mind - so
mpeg4 requires a lot more horsepower to encode and yet is just as easy
to decode (or even easier as you are seeing in your case).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Steve<br><br>