Dave Matthews wrote:
> Back in 1876, then US Congressman James Garfield came up with a "new" proof
> of the Pythagorean Theorem, based on the area of a trapezoid.  Four years
> later, he would be elected President, and a few months after assuming
> office he was assassinated.  There is no evidence that his proof of the
> Pythagorean Theorem had anything to do with the assassination.
> 
I have a vague remembrance from an article I read some time ago, that 
this guy was also able to write with one hand in latin, and at the same 
time with the other hand in greek...

The animation is nice, but I find it goes and moves a bit too quickly to 
allow to really understand the proof at first view.

Thibaut

Post a reply to this message

Thibaut Jonckheere <tua### [at] yahoofr> wrote:

> I have a vague remembrance from an article I read some time ago, that
> this guy was also able to write with one hand in latin, and at the same
> time with the other hand in greek...

Yes, I recall that also, and found a mention of it here:

http://www.mind-course.com/ambi.html

> The animation is nice, but I find it goes and moves a bit too quickly to
> allow to really understand the proof at first view.


Thanks, and I agree it's too fast.  Adding frames to slow it down makes it
huge.  I'm wondering if there's a more efficient compression method that
doesn't fuzz up the image too much.  I like to keep the size large (640 x
480), but it's already a bit of a waste of space at 6 megs....

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Matthews" <dav### [at] mnwestedu> wrote in message 
news:web.43e20bb2d2cab98a8c7259570@news.povray.org...
> Thanks, and I agree it's too fast.  Adding frames to slow it down 
makes it
> huge.  I'm wondering if there's a more efficient compression method 
that
> doesn't fuzz up the image too much.  I like to keep the size large 
(640 x
> 480), but it's already a bit of a waste of space at 6 megs....

lower framerate? :)

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Matthews wrote:
> Thanks, and I agree it's too fast.  Adding frames to slow it down makes it
> huge.  I'm wondering if there's a more efficient compression method that
> doesn't fuzz up the image too much.  I like to keep the size large (640 x
> 480), but it's already a bit of a waste of space at 6 megs....
> 
	DivX? Here's a 630k version of yours without fuzz:
http://jeberger.free.fr/tmp/garfieldfull.avi

	Or you could go for MPEG1. It'll be bigger than DivX, but still
much smaller than your MJPEG for the same quality...

		Jerome

- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
*  mailto:jeb### [at] freefr   *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD4lJXd0kWM4JG3k8RAiYtAJ9Mfb8bix15tyeaywulc4X5vRD42wCeL3B1
odiLtUouPdAV+pLfwNIin7Q=
=qdoX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:

> lower framerate? :)

I'm already down to 10 frames per second - I think the next step is still
shots.

Post a reply to this message

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dave Matthews wrote:
>  DivX? Here's a 630k version of yours without fuzz:
> http://jeberger.free.fr/tmp/garfieldfull.avi

That's fantastic.  What did you use to convert it?  630 k makes it
reasonable.

Dave

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Matthews wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Dave Matthews wrote:
>> DivX? Here's a 630k version of yours without fuzz:
>>http://jeberger.free.fr/tmp/garfieldfull.avi
> 
> 
> That's fantastic.  What did you use to convert it?  630 k makes it
> reasonable.
> 
	I used mencoder on linux with the XviD codec and two-pass encoding.
The actual command lines were:

mencoder -ovc xvid -xvidencopts
vhq=4:max_bframes=2:qpel:gmc:lumi_mask:autoaspect:psnr:bitrate=256:pass=1
- -nosound -o garfieldfull.avi garfieldfull01.mov

mencoder -ovc xvid -xvidencopts
vhq=4:max_bframes=2:qpel:gmc:lumi_mask:autoaspect:psnr:bitrate=256:pass=2
- -nosound -o garfieldfull.avi garfieldfull01.mov

	Since you're on windows, you might want to look here for the XviD
codec:
http://www.zdnet.fr/telecharger/windows/fiche/0,39021313,11010875s,00.htm

	I don't know what frontend you use to generate your video, but I
would recommend VirtualDub:
http://www.virtualdub.org/


- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
*  mailto:jeb### [at] freefr   *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD48CXd0kWM4JG3k8RApthAJ9sxlTQMJktt0EG3IeFgzgj4gyZRwCggibO
hvsIZF32e3dlIK/ffF/62iI=
=G4mZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>  Since you're on windows, you might want to look here for the XviD
> codec:
> http://www.zdnet.fr/telecharger/windows/fiche/0,39021313,11010875s,00.htm
>
>  I don't know what frontend you use to generate your video, but I
> would recommend VirtualDub:
> http://www.virtualdub.org/
>


Thanks.  VirtualDub is really nice, and using the XviD codec and VirtualDub,
I've gotten it down to about 1.45 megs -- once I figure out the 2-pass
trick, maybe I can compress it even more.

(I was just using QuickTime Pro, but I always prefer to find open source
alternatives.)

Dave Matthews

Post a reply to this message

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>  I don't know what frontend you use to generate your video, but I
> would recommend VirtualDub:
> http://www.virtualdub.org/
>


And adjusting the target bitrate down to 256 got me in under 600 k.  Thanks
again!  I teach on-line classes, and now I can post up decent
demonstrations that won't take them an hour to download on dial-up
connections.

Dave Matthews

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Matthews" <dav### [at] mnwestedu> wrote in message 
news:web.43deae35bdd460ca8c7259570@news.povray.org...
> Back in 1876, then US Congressman James Garfield came up with a "new" 
> proof
>
> The astute observer will note that it's not a very remarkable proof,

I would have flunked out of my High School Geometry class if it weren't for 
a final test to pass the class, so this is remarkable enough. And I can 
almost understand it, too, after looking at it stopped at the end for 
awhile. I sure didn't know anything about President Garfield doing that. I 
wasn't very good in History class either.

Post a reply to this message