Hmmm, well I just took another look at Cinepak, used it at 100 quality
(best) and 150kb rate, every 15th frame interleave.  It didn't look any
worse than a good Jpg when freeze-framed.  90 frames of 240x180 res. made
for a 929KB file, not too bad imo.  I think I know what you mean though, if
you try to compress it, the comparison to more recent codecs is nul and void
then.  Actually I couldn't say what the average type is being used these
days, though I should think most anyone doing this sort of thing would have
updated to codecs put out at least within a couple years ago which should
mean the Indeo 4.* ones at least and above.

Bob

"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:mYtxOE84V2U4=ZueaNYks9viRAqi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:06:49 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> >Guess that's just more updated so if you went with compatiblity you'd
> >probably have to go with the old Cinepak by Radius (which is pretty good
> >anyway) or older MS ones like MS Video 1 (yuck).
> >
> >Bob
>
> Cinepak is very, very messy even at normal compression rates, and it
> has the problem of leaving coloured motion trails when fast motion
> occurs. MPEG would be the best choice if available, and Indeo 5.0x for
> AVIs. It is more common than you think, at least on the Windows
> platform. It comes with Win98 and 5.04 comes with Media Player 6.4
> (freely downloadable from ms.com).
>
>
> Peter Popov
> pet### [at] usanet
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message