|
|
Posted by Toby on 03/23/07 06:24
"Dave" <blachley@aol.com> wrote in message
news:udSLh.363197$_X1.62673@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> 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.
Keep in mind that AVI is basically just a "shell"; quality to a great extent
depends on the codec used to create the AVI file. WMV as well has many
levels of quality possible, depending on how much compression you use.
Mpeg 2 & 4 can be pretty good, although there are also lot of different
levels of quality (depending on the bit rate, for instance and the number of
passes, and the encoder). I have lately been cutting news stories for major
European broadcasters and transferring them via FTP in Mpeg 2, which is
basically fine for that purpose. The big problem with Mpeg 2 comes when
there is a lot of movement in a frame--the motion artifacts can become
pretty nasty.
Toby
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|