"Little Me" <guess@where.net> wrote in message
news:41a4c195$0$6275$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
> Hello Brent
>
> You wrote
>>
>> "Little Me" <guess@where.net> wrote in news:41a3b3ea$0$6255$c3e8da3
>> @news.astraweb.com:
>>
>> >
>> > You wrote:
>> >>
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> p.s. I think the others (and myself) would be very
>> >> interested in what you used to make this. thanks.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There are scores of programs for converting
>> > picture sets to videos.
>> >
>> > Here are my suggestions:
>> > Avoid conversion to MPEG format since that will
>> > degrade the quality.
>> > Use one picture per AVI frame.
>> > Make each frame a keyframe.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Converting to MPEG format won't degrade the quality if you do it right.
>>
>
>
>
> It will either degrade the quality or increase the file size.
> The approximations characteristic of MPEG encoding were
> designed for the kind of motion which occurs in the real world.
> Just as JPEG does a poor job with the abrupt spatial transitions
> of cartoons, MPEG does not handle well the abrupt
> temporal transitions of slide shows.
> (Remember that MPEG-1 frame rates are restricted to 24-30 fps.)
> Of course, you can compensate by increasing the encoding bitrate
> but the result would be a bloated file size.
>
>
>
>
> P.S. "ifucouldwouldu"
> Probably, but that depends, doesn't it?
>
omg, that's *exactly* what I was thinking.
LOLOL
yeah, right. I did recognize a few of the words in
all of that. this is why it's a good idea for someone
such as yourself to do these conversions, at least
for the time being.... I envy the skill and talent
involved, but I guess we all have some strong
points. Its collaberative.
thanks to all who replied and add
to a growing base of knowledge.
( I mean it).
xx
barry~
|
|