If all of the above is true, a transcoder could definitely keep that core representation and just recompress it with compression++. I could envision there being the same core representation of the stream data given EAC3 is largely just an expansion of AC3, plus optionally better compression. EAC3 decoders being able to fluently decode to AC3 in playback.įor normal bitrates (32-640) and for normal channels (1-6), the feature set is virtually identical the only benefit you would gain from EAC3 over AC3 is the improvements in compression. There are a few reasons I suspect this might be true for these two formats whereas I'd immediately discard it for others.ĭolby clearly had a lot of interplay in mind between EAC3 and AC3, i.e. I find myself with a question that doesn't seem to get posed much out there: Is it feasible to transcode an AC3 stream into EAC3 at a comparable bitrate without degrading its quality?Īn example of what I am talking about is.ĪC3, 5.1, 640kbps -> ffmpeg -> EAC3, 5.1, 640kbps initial sets the newt track before the video track, which is not optimal. It will take a long time, because the DTS -> AC3 process runs at 1x. First, boy does searching for professionalish documentation on media transcoding remind me why I love reddit 90% of the useful answers come up here. wd '.' : works in current directory instead of /tmp by default.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |