View Single Post
Old 5th March 2014, 20:00   #19482  |  Link
Peter_A
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
Well with all due respect in return... since I am the author of the software, the calculation to be used will be decided by me.

I've answered your questions courteously. I've looked at the calculations very carefully -- and I'm not going to argue this point, no matter how many times you repeat your posts.

What I will do, when I find the time, is run "The Artist" and follow the code and see why it decides that reencoding is necessary. But I'm confident the reasoning will follow the rules I've already stated numerous times in the past several pages.
Thanks for your response, and I do appreciate your time. It's great to be able to have a dialogue with the person who is developing the software.

I'm just a bit frustrated, because this was working for me before, and I cannot figure out why it is not now, especially since you've confirmed that nothing has changed with respect to these calculations. The last 3 titles that I have tried are exhibiting this behavior. I only mentioned "The Artist" due to the very small amount that it needed to be shrunk, and the large amount of space saved by the audio re-encode. Of course, by modifying the target size, I have found a way around this behavior.

Maybe you'll be able to see something, and if so, I look forward to hearing about it. Thanks again.
Peter_A is offline   Reply With Quote