|
|
Posted by Dave on 03/20/07 14:29
ronnie bell wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:35:31 GMT, "bgd" <bgd73@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well I'm just 2 steps beyond a noob myself but here's my 2 cents
> worth.
> AVI is the BEST. It is uncompressed frame by frame video.
> ANYTHING else has less quality.
Being a noob, your not capturing uncompressed video. Yes, uncompressed
AVI can be done, but it needs special "faster" hard drives because the
data rate is about 220 mb/s, much faster than most drives can maintain.
> MPEG, whether 2 or 4 is compressed. WMV is also compressed but seems
> to suffer a little less than some compression schemes with respect to
> picture quality. Oh yea, there's DIVX, another compressed stream.
> And of course the MOV you mentioned then the flash compressed youtoob
> CRAP. it's watchable in a TWO INCH window - lol.
MOV can also be uncompressed, but again.. uncompression takes "major
balls" something that the average PC (or even Macs) don't have unless
you've added in a RAID system of some sorts.
Flash is not a form of compression, it's a web application, your mixed
up with .FLV which is a compressed video. And FLV can look pretty good,
but it's a trade off space vs. quality. It's uses as a delivery method
like DIVX, not a capture method.
> I do all my work on AVI's captured from a digital camera via firewire
> then edit in vegas and render as an mpeg2 for dvd burning.
> That's all i know.
> r.b.
Most likely your capturing AVI using DV codec then, which is compressed
about 5:1.
To the original poster.. keep in mind that what you're seeing on a
computer, maybe how real video looks on a really good monitor (i.e. your
computer monitor) and you never knew how crappy video looked until you
watched it on a good source.. so this is probably what shocked you. Run
a test by burning something to DVD, and then put it back on that crappy
monitor and see if it looks good.
-dave
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|