 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just testing out a lighting algo I am (done) working on.
--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenet com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'LightTest.avi.dat' (149 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Vanukoff wrote:
>
> Just testing out a lighting algo I am (done) working on.
What codec do you use? I cannot view a singel animation
of your's...
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been using Intel Indeo video 5.04.
What should I be using? Is there a preferred standard?
--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom
Markus Becker wrote in message <387### [at] studentuni-siegende>...
>Paul Vanukoff wrote:
>>
>> Just testing out a lighting algo I am (done) working on.
>
>What codec do you use? I cannot view a singel animation
>of your's...
>
>Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
"Paul Vanukoff" <van### [at] primenetcom> wrote in message
news:3870ac9e@news.povray.org...
> I've been using Intel Indeo video 5.04.
>
> What should I be using? Is there a preferred standard?
>
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
> van### [at] primenetcom
>
>
> Markus Becker wrote in message <387### [at] studentuni-siegende>...
> >Paul Vanukoff wrote:
> >>
> >> Just testing out a lighting algo I am (done) working on.
> >
> >What codec do you use? I cannot view a singel animation
> >of your's...
> >
> >Markus
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
