[argyllcms] Re: Wow
- From: Stephan Bourgeois <strangelv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:35:36 +0100
> Good to hear you got a great result. I'm not sure there's
> any reason to use -qu ("Ultra") though. -qm or -qh are
> perfectly reasonable settings. [...]
Um...gee, thanks. /Now/ you tell me!
How 'bout renaming it to ``Useless Overkill''? That way, the flag
can stay the same but poor schmucks like me will get the point....
As far as human interface is concerned, may I recommend the approach
used by lame (mp3 encoder). They are documented by typing "lame --preset
help"
"--preset medium" This preset should provide near transparency
to most people on most music.
"--preset standard" This preset should generally be transparent
to most people on most music and is already
quite high in quality.
"--preset extreme" If you have extremely good hearing and similar
equipment, this preset will generally provide
slightly higher quality than the "standard"
mode.
For CBR 320kbps (highest quality possible from the --preset switches):
"--preset insane" This preset will usually be overkill for most
people and most situations, but if you must
have the absolute highest quality with no
regard to filesize, this is the way to go.
Yours,
Stephan.
- Follow-Ups:
- [argyllcms] Re: Wow
- From: Greg Sullivan
Other related posts:
- » [argyllcms] Wow.
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow.
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow.
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow.
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow.
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow.
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow
- » [argyllcms] Re: Wow
> Good to hear you got a great result. I'm not sure there's
> any reason to use -qu ("Ultra") though. -qm or -qh are
> perfectly reasonable settings. [...]Um...gee, thanks. /Now/ you tell me!
How 'bout renaming it to ``Useless Overkill''? That way, the flag
can stay the same but poor schmucks like me will get the point....
- [argyllcms] Re: Wow
- From: Greg Sullivan