 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
sounds like a typical tactic of the DiVX crew... yuck.
There are just an absurd number of alphas, and betas
out there.
Jetlag wrote:
>
> "Karl Pelzer" <Kar### [at] nospam t-onlinede> wrote in message
> news:3BA1BC00.B8CBBD77@nospam.t-online.de...
> > Nope!
> >
> > It's all right. I'm not sure how widely the codecs are spread. I've just
> > chosen 4.01 because it is a non-beta version.
>
> "I've also been talking with the developers of DivX4 and it looks as they're
> still heavily working on the codec despite the final stage. ... The final
> release was more a marketing decision than a development decision, as some
> companies do not consider codecs that are labeled beta no matter how good they
> are."
>
> That's a quote from an article on a major divxing site, and its the reason I'm
> reluctant to get the codec just yet.
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother? I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3BA### [at] nospamt-onlinede>, KarlPelzer@nospam.t-
online.de says...
> Jim Kress wrote:
>
> > Just like the experience most people in the US have had with SAP - it
> > doesn't work.
> >
> > Neither does your animation.
> >
>
>
> Can't verify any of your opinions. SAP works. My animation works. *g*
>
>
> > Is there a player that will actually allow people to view your work?
>
>
> Yep. Go to http://www.divx.com/ and download the complete package which
> includes the codec (DivX4.01 final) and the "playa". This should work.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
>
Yes thank you: it all works fine now! I like the anim!!
--
Regards,
Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
> ugh... "the playa.." I'm surprised the DiVX codec works
> at all if "the playa" is another example of their
> programming skills and methods...
I didn't test "the playa" yet. The codec works fine with M$ media player.
Karl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
yeah it works fine for the M$ product- its just a
codec. I use BINK to encode and it can handle encoding
to DiVX just fine too once the codecs are in... NOT
that I ever DO that, MIND you... :)
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother? I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
> yeah it works fine for the M$ product- its just a
> codec. I use BINK to encode and it can handle encoding
> to DiVX just fine too once the codecs are in... NOT
> that I ever DO that, MIND you... :)
>
I'm using BINK too. It gives good compression results too. But bik-files
aren't playable without BINK. O.k. one can make an executable , but I
once tried it in this group and many people didn't download because of
possible malicious code (they're right).
So now I use BINK to make bik-files and then I convert them to DivX or
whatever.
Karl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I cannot see it.
MPG-1 is the common courtesy for posting here...
Sander wrote:
> In article <3BA116A4.2060603@.t-online.de>, KarlPelzer@.t-online.de
> says...
> > In some parts in the company I am working for, we are starting to use
> > SAP R/3 with 4.62 (?) GUI.
> > I found the splash animation quite boring and I thought I can do an
> > appropriate animation for our company.
> > Let me explain in short: Our company produces design bath tubs, shower
> > trays, whirlpools and so on. (go to www.hoesch.de, english pages available)
> > So I used the tiles (associated with bathroom), water effect (not as
> > good as I intended), bubbles (the whirlpools) and the dominating color
> > blue which is a sign of water and our company's color too.
> >
> > The scene uses photons and radiosity als well as Chris Colefax'
> > lensflare include and clock macro. Rendering the 60 frames took 88.5 hrs
> > on a PIII 1Gig with MegaPOV 0.7 on WinNT (renderings on daytime in the
> > background).
> > After having converted the frames into a single animation it looks too
> > bright and I don't really like the water effect and the almost invisible
> > water surface. I tried scattering media in the water but it didn't work
> > the way I expected it.
> > It is not likely that I'll render it again with other settings.
> >
> > So far...
> >
> > Karl
> Whatever I try: I can't see it :( Although I had the impression I could
> play DivX, but this is maybe a type I don't know... Do you have details
> of it?
> --
> Regards,
> Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ba12f9a@news.povray.org>, Bugs74 <Bug### [at] wanadoonl> wrote:
> Why? It's just a matter of downloading the right codec, which is not THAT
> large. Most modern internet-connections, even 28.8k, should'nt take more
> than a few minutes to download it.
> What's the problem?
>
> Bugs74
Hmm... POV available for just about every system you can think of,
Divx 4 available for... windows. What's the problem? This said, I'm
assuming there's no alternate compatable version for macs?
- Rico
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reusser wrote:
> Hmm... POV available for just about every system you can think of,
> Divx 4 available for... windows.
... and for Linux and MacOS too, since it is open source.
Karl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just went to www.divx.com and downloaded the last Mac version of the codec.
No difference, the animation is still impossible to view.
Tom Stone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
> I have recompressed it using the more widely
> installed DIVX 3.11 so this version should hopefully be viewable by all.
Nope, didn't work.
I just went to www.divx.com and downloaded the Mac version of the codec.
No difference, this animation is just as impossible to view as the original
one.
Tom Stone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
