On 2/24/2009 7:31 AM, gregjohn wrote:
> Anyone understand the exact science of exactly what property of an animation
> file makes it play clunky on an old laptop (it might actually have WinNT on
> it).   Does the pixel size play a bigger role than the actual MB of file size?
> Is there any file format MPEG, WMV, that inherently gives the 'puter less work
> to process and display?

Two things to keep in mind:

1: Codec used.  h.263 is supposed to be low-cost, CPU wise.  h.264 is 
harder for CPUs than VC1, and (supposedly) better at low bit rates than 
the latter.  Of course, at higher bit rates the quality difference is 
negligible.

2: Bitrate.  The higher the bitrate, the more work your memory subsystem 
must do.

Personally, I would go with VC1 (wmv9), and adjust the bitrate to come 
up with an acceptable file size.  I encode DVDs (720x480x29.97) at 2Mb, 
and see very few artifacts (mostly in large swaths of dark colors).

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message