Posted by P.C. Ford on 04/03/06 07:49

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:03:34 +0530, kaveh@delete_this.river-valley.com
(Kaveh) wrote:

>P.C. Ford <meoh@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> > Exporting to jpegs will certainly work but you will lose any
>> animations.
>
>If you export to jpeg, then go to video from there, will you get a
>better result than going straight from a scan converter? If so, why? Are
>you not looking at the same video resolution at the end?

Going to jpegs was not an option for me, because animations were used
extensively. I believe exporting to jpegs does result in a better
image than scan conversion. We just did not have much luck with it. We
were using a solid Sony converter. But, as I said, the colors were
muddy and text was blurry. I may be that the scan converter was not
set up correctly. Another guy was running it.

I gave a lot of thought and investigation to this and for me Camtasia
was the way to go. It is not without problems. Uses its own codec
which seems extremely slow and costs $300.

PowerPoint is a pain to convert. Avoid it if you can. If you can't
Camtasia works best for me. My $.02. Your mileage may vary.

[Back to original message]