 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As promised... anyway, I was amazed how much faster my 3 GHz pentium machine
was over my AMD XP2400. It took about 3 hours to render these 100 frames.
About the format, it's DivX, is that appropiate here? If not what other
option should I choose (it's the standard windows "choose codec" dialog box)
out of:
Cinepak Codec by Radius
MSVideo 1
Indeo Video 5.1
MS MPEG 4
MS MPEG 5
MS WMV
DivX
Full frames
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dance.avi.dat' (358 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:14:45 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spam com> wrote:
>As promised...
Looks real good
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very very nice...I like the lights fading out instead of just switching
off. It's a shame radiosity takes so long for those of us that don't
have 3Ghz machines. :)
DivX works for those of us that have downloaded the DivX codec. Those
that haven't, should. 'Nuff said. ;)
If people complain, use Indeo or WMV, whichever produces smaller files.
Both are supported by just about everybody, AFAIK (excluding Macs).
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Thorn" <mik### [at] realitycheckmultimediacom> wrote in message
news:41bde2b5$1@news.povray.org
> Very very nice...I like the lights fading out instead of just
> switching off. It's a shame radiosity takes so long for those of us
> that don't have 3Ghz machines. :)
No radiosity :)
> DivX works for those of us that have downloaded the DivX codec.
> Those that haven't, should. 'Nuff said. ;)
>
> If people complain, use Indeo or WMV, whichever produces smaller
> files. Both are supported by just about everybody, AFAIK (excluding
> Macs).
Yeh I was worried about non-Windows machines. Anyone who is using windows
should have DivX IMHO!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
