 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many people cannot see DivX >:P !
M-peg is a common standard that offers nearly all viewers the courtesy of
actually being able to see your animation.
Rob Verweij wrote:
> It's best to use DivX;-) compression for avi files cause you have very good
> quality at a high compression ratio. You can also use Mpeg or quickTime
> which give good compression as well but their quality versus compression is
> not as good as with DivX;-) avi files.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
> > 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
>
> Hardly, Ken. Windows is not this dominant.
First of all, using DivX is not catering to Win users but a very small subset
of them.
As for the use of Win, it depends on whether you're talking about a
pov-specific community or the whole world.
TheCounter.com statistics. First column is the 2200 visitors to the
10best.raytrace.com site, the other is the half a billion visitors to all web
pages in the TheCounter.com database.
[1] [2]
Win 98 43% 66%
Win NT 17% 7%
Win 95 12% 15%
Win 2K 8% 3%
Linux 7% 0%
Unkn 4% 2%
Mac 3% 2%
Unix 2% 0%
Total
Windows 80% 91%
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to
> the 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows
> platform.
> Why put out inferior material to cater to 10%
> of the worlds computer users who refuse to fit into the main
> stream ?
This is getting very close to being flame bait of the highest degree. If someone
does not use Windows they are "refusing to fit in"??!! Maybe I misunderstand
your point, but I am an engineer; I use the best tool for the task at hand.
Sometimes it's on a Windows box (because the *client* wants it), sometimes it's
not.
In any case, all that my original question was posed for was to determine the
largest size that was permissible to post, and which format gave the best
size/quality.
As far as which platform supports which formats, Windows supports a wide range,
but Linux appears to support a quite sufficient portion of these, as well. Here
is the relevent portion of the man page for xanim (and there are plenty of other
animation players out there for Linux - and I am sure that Mac supports a huge
variety of players, as well):
+ FLI animations.
+ FLC animations.
+ IFF animations. The following features are supported:
-> Compressions 3,5,7,J(movies) and l(small L).
-> Color cycling during single images and anims.
-> Display Modes: depth 1-8, EHB, HAM and HAM8.
+ GIF87a and GIF89a files.
-> single and multiple images supported.
-> GIF89a animation extensions supported.
+ GIF89a animation extension support.
+ a kludgy text file listing gifs and what order to show them in.
+ DL animations. Formats 1, 2 and partial 3.
+ Amiga PFX(PageFlipper Plus F/X) animations. TEMP DISABLED
+ Amiga MovieSetter animations(For those Eric Schwartz fans).
+ Utah Raster Toolkit RLE images and anims.
+ AVI Animations Format
Supported Video Codecs:
-> IBM Ultimotion (ULTI) depth 16.
-> JPEG (JPEG) depth 24.
-> Motion JPEG (MJPG) depth 24.
-> Intergraph JPEG (IJPG) depth 24.
-> Microsoft Video 1 (CRAM) depth 8 and 16.
-> Radius Cinepak (CVID) depth 24. (see NOTE 1)
-> Intel Indeo 3.1 (IV31) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Indeo 3.2 (IV32) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Raw YUV (YUV9) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Creative CYUV (CYUV) depth 16. (see NOTE 3)
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 4.
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 8.
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 16.
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 24.
-> Run length encoded (RLE8) depth 8.
-> Editable MPEG (XMPG) depth 24.
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> PCM 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> uLAW mono/stereo
-> MSADPCM mono/stereo
-> Intel DVI(IMA4) mono/stereo
-> GSM 6.10 mono
+ Quicktime Animations.
Supported Video Codecs:
-> Uncompressed (RAW ) depth 1,4,8,16,24 and 24+
-> Uncompressed (RAW ) Gray depth 1,4 and 8.
-> Apple Graphics (RLE ) depth 1,8,16 and 24.
-> Apple Graphics (RLE ) GRAY depth 8.
-> Apple Animation (SMC ) depth 8 and GRAY 8.
-> Apple Video (RPZA) depth 16.
-> Radius Cinepak (CVID) depth 24. (see NOTE 1)
-> Radius Cinepak (CVID) GRAY 8. (see NOTE 1)
-> Intel Indeo 3.1 (IV31) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Indeo 3.2 (IV32) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Raw YUV (YUV9) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Component Video (YUV2) depth 24.
-> Photo JPEG (JPEG) depth 8 and 24.
-> Kodak Photo CD (KPCD) depth 24.
-> Microsoft Video 1 (CRAM) depth 8 and 16.
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> Unsigned PCM (raw) 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> Signed PCM (twos) 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> uLAW (ulaw) mono/stereo
-> IMA4 (ima4) mono/stereo
-> GSM 6.10 (agsm) mono
The following features are supported:
-> Supports multiple video trak's.
-> Supports animations with multiple codecs.
-> Supports merged and separated resource forks.
+ SGI Movie Format Files.
Supported Video Codecs:
-> Uncompressed RGB 24 bits
-> MVC1
-> MVC2
-> JPEG
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> Unsigned PCM 8/16 mono/stereo
-> Signed PCM 8/16 mono/stereo
+ WAV audio files may have their sound added to any animation type that
doesn't already have audio, by specifying the .wav file after the animation file
on the command line.
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> PCM 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> uLAW mono/stereo
-> MSADPCM mono/stereo
-> Intel DVI(IMA4) mono/stereo
-> GSM 6.10 mono
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pc org
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> It is impossible to know exactly what percentage or computer users
> are Windows users but it is estimated that the range is between
> 85-90 percent. This came out in the monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft.
And it is changing daily.
> I accept and respect platform diversity. I will point out though
> that those people who operate on these systems do so with the full
> knowlege that they have inherent limitations that Windows users
> do not suffer from the biggest of which if software diversity and
> support.
THat was the case at one time. It is simply no longer relevant. Windows has a
huge glut of software available (of wildly varying quality). Linux is gaining
the support of industry leaders and commercial giants every day. Right now, I
have no reason to turn on my Windows machine at all, except for the fact that my
wife uses it. As it stands currently, Windows is easier to use for neophytes,
but even that may not be the case very shortly.
> I think you fail to recognize that as a Mac user you are in a niche
> market. The same is true of the nerds and geeks that prefer to use
> linux, unix, and the other handful of alternative OS's available.
> You are not mainsteam nor are you the majority no matter how much
> you would wish it to be otherwise. You may consider yourself an
> elitist, I do not. Enjoy your apple a day but if it keeps the DivX
> away don't come crying on my shoulder.
I thought as you do at one time, Ken. However, I have come to feel that Apple's
engineering is admirable. Steve Jobs has turned them around, and I think Mac is
coming back as a force to be reckoned with. Microsoft will not gain market
share, and will likely not even hold their own in the coming years, with respect
to market share.
This should really be mnoved to "off-topic".
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
: unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
: computer user.
Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
read this kind of articles.
Some people want to work with real operating systems, which are stable and
efficient, not toys. If the mainstream computer user uses shit, that doesn't
mean that everyone should use it.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
: in computer software
You call Windows an "advance"?
Yeah. Sure. Do you have any more jokes like that?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: The same is true of the nerds and geeks that prefer to use
: linux, unix, and the other handful of alternative OS's available.
You seem to think that everyone is using a PC.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
: Don't forget: DivX also exists for Linux!
This statement is a bit misleading.
"A file format exists for Linux". Since when file formats exist only
in certain systems? Do the stop existing in other systems?
You probably meant that there's a DivX player for Linux.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
> : unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
> : computer user.
>
> Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
> And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
> html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
> read this kind of articles.
I have no problem with html posts what so ever. I have a reasonably
fast internet connection and I use modern software that is html
compliant. The only reason that I help enforce the non html ruling
here in the news groups is because of the issue that people such
as yourself complain so loudly on the subject that I get tired of
hearing about it. Also as a memeber of the TAG I have a responsibility
to to the POV-Team to help keep the strain on the news servers
resources down to a minimum.
Otherwise I wouldn't care one way or another. Sometimes I really
miss not being able to use some of the added bennefits of posting
in html. It would be really nice to color highlight or underline a
phrase to add emphasis to a statement or hightlight a problem in
scene code. Plain text is boring and restrictive.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Creating computer graphics is one of the most computer intensive
proffesions/hobbies around and people who create and/or watch CG (especially 3D
CGI) know they need some real computing power to keep up with the developments
of it's industry, especially online. Since this NG is geared toward animations
most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection and so
they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
other software/driver and I strongly suggest they do because if you wanna keep
up with the rest it's best to have the latest technologies at your disposal and
currently for online animations DivX;-) can't be beat. It has super quality at a
high compression ratio and that's what we all want. If you don't want some
people to miss out on your latest and greatest animation then post them in
several different formats. Especially in 3DCGI, people preffer quality and
that's what DivX;-) delivers: High quality at a great compression ratio. Have
you ever tried to create a descent looking animation using the Cinepak codec?
Then you know what I mean when I say it's quality (well, at least most of us) we
want.
HTML-coding your NG postings is a totally different ball game.HTML-code is used
to create Webpages or enhanced E-mails and indeed could be used for sending a
HTML message to a NG but not sending them that way to a NG has to do with ethics
and not with the abillity of browsers to read them.
Oh, one more thing, it's not the OS you use it's how you use it.
If you're reffering to the OS a Mac uses that's not as stable as you think.
People who work on DEC Alpha's or SGI's and use IRIX well they still preffer to
watch quality animations instead of highly compressed animations with low
quality. (Why else would they be using the Workstations they use?).
My 2 cents,
Rob Verweij.
Warp schreef:
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
> : unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
> : computer user.
>
> Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
> And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
> html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
> read this kind of articles.
>
> Some people want to work with real operating systems, which are stable and
> efficient, not toys. If the mainstream computer user uses shit, that doesn't
> mean that everyone should use it.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
