Hrm... is this progress?
Jan. 11th, 2009 06:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prusikFound a better way of transcoding from PAL to NTSC. (Yes, I realize that this is the 21st Century and if I just want to watch the video, I don't need to do that. We have these things called computers now. However... oh, long story and it's really not that interesting.) Better quality conversion. Hopefully, the markers I set in the PAL source will transfer into the NTSC result. (I'm in the middle of a test conversion.)
However, the time estimate I'm getting right now is that a minute of video will take about an hour to convert. I have just under 3 hours of video. That's *gulp* about 7.5 days...
Reference previous entry about how I need a beefier computer if I ever do this again. Well, I don't think I'm doing this again, but of course, that's what I thought last time. I mean, I have the tool chain in place and half the time, I click a button and it does stuff, for days, without me.
(Actually, I have archival video on VHS tapes that I ought to convert into the archival medium of the moment. However, they are all already in NTSC. Unfortunately, noise reduction is computationally intensive, and I really could use better software... *sigh*)
However, the time estimate I'm getting right now is that a minute of video will take about an hour to convert. I have just under 3 hours of video. That's *gulp* about 7.5 days...
Reference previous entry about how I need a beefier computer if I ever do this again. Well, I don't think I'm doing this again, but of course, that's what I thought last time. I mean, I have the tool chain in place and half the time, I click a button and it does stuff, for days, without me.
(Actually, I have archival video on VHS tapes that I ought to convert into the archival medium of the moment. However, they are all already in NTSC. Unfortunately, noise reduction is computationally intensive, and I really could use better software... *sigh*)
