Speaking of resolution, what about fps?
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 19:41
The last show I got lazy -- no, wait: I was under deadline pressure; that sounds better 
-- and I tried to get away without converting a number of clips to MJPEG/400x300. In brief, that tore 2.1 a new one; I finally had to uninstall 2.1 and install 2.0 in the middle of the show...
...and at the moment I'm busy converting clips.
In the past, I've converted to MJPEG/400x300/30fps, but I was wondering if I really need to standardize frame rates. I understand that 400x300 allows 800x600 output to be scaled in hardware very efficiently, but I don't see how any similar gain would be achieved by changing framerate. In fact, when working with a source clip of < 30fps, it would seem to me to have the opposite effect by increasing the size of the video file unnecessarily. In any case, I find I often play back clips at a higher or lower speed than they were recorded.
Bart? Edwin?
-- and I tried to get away without converting a number of clips to MJPEG/400x300. In brief, that tore 2.1 a new one; I finally had to uninstall 2.1 and install 2.0 in the middle of the show......and at the moment I'm busy converting clips.
In the past, I've converted to MJPEG/400x300/30fps, but I was wondering if I really need to standardize frame rates. I understand that 400x300 allows 800x600 output to be scaled in hardware very efficiently, but I don't see how any similar gain would be achieved by changing framerate. In fact, when working with a source clip of < 30fps, it would seem to me to have the opposite effect by increasing the size of the video file unnecessarily. In any case, I find I often play back clips at a higher or lower speed than they were recorded.
Bart? Edwin?