 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I made an animation to share at an art festival at work. About a dozen people
submitted framed still art; I've been submitting animations.
The coordinator of the contest was most gracious in lending me, or the contest,
a realllly old and clunky laptop to display my animation on.
I originally made two 640x480 MPEG-1's and put them together with title
sequences using Windows Movie Maker.
I made a 640x480 wmv and put it on the computer. It played horribly clunkily.
I took the file into TMPGEnc and output a 640x480 and a 400x300 MPEG-1. The
400x300 MPEG-1 looked like crap as far as compression artifacts, but played
okay. Funny how I had something in the contest last year that was 400x300 and
didn't seem so bad on this guy's same old laptop.
Any tips? Given that I mentioned POV-Ray, should I just outright cancel the
submission? I suppose I could always put a personal laptop at risk for theft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Chambers
Subject: Re: Crappy submisison to workplace art contest.
Date: 23 Feb 2009 23:51:52
Message: <49a37ce8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/23/2009 4:17 PM, gregjohn wrote:
> Any tips? Given that I mentioned POV-Ray, should I just outright cancel the
> submission? I suppose I could always put a personal laptop at risk for theft.
Buy an Atom based Netbook and chain it to a desk.
Netbook: $350 or less.
Chain: $10.
Lock: $25.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Buy an Atom based Netbook and chain it to a desk.
>
> Netbook: $350 or less.
> Chain: $10.
> Lock: $25.
How about a "digital photo frame"? Can those play MPEG?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>
> > Buy an Atom based Netbook and chain it to a desk.
> >
> > Netbook: $350 or less.
> > Chain: $10.
> > Lock: $25.
>
> How about a "digital photo frame"? Can those play MPEG?
Thanks for these ideas, but these items may be much more attractive to theft
than my slightly less-old computer.
Anyone understand the exact science of exactly what property of an animation
file makes it play clunky on an old laptop (it might actually have WinNT on
it). Does the pixel size play a bigger role than the actual MB of file size?
Is there any file format MPEG, WMV, that inherently gives the 'puter less work
to process and display?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/24/2009 7:31 AM, gregjohn wrote:
> Anyone understand the exact science of exactly what property of an animation
> file makes it play clunky on an old laptop (it might actually have WinNT on
> it). Does the pixel size play a bigger role than the actual MB of file size?
> Is there any file format MPEG, WMV, that inherently gives the 'puter less work
> to process and display?
Two things to keep in mind:
1: Codec used. h.263 is supposed to be low-cost, CPU wise. h.264 is
harder for CPUs than VC1, and (supposedly) better at low bit rates than
the latter. Of course, at higher bit rates the quality difference is
negligible.
2: Bitrate. The higher the bitrate, the more work your memory subsystem
must do.
Personally, I would go with VC1 (wmv9), and adjust the bitrate to come
up with an acceptable file size. I encode DVDs (720x480x29.97) at 2Mb,
and see very few artifacts (mostly in large swaths of dark colors).
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
