At 16:17 2/14/2001, eel wrote:
>Thanks Guys.
>
>The reason I asked is because I have an animation
>sequence of 60 jpegs(which were initially tiffs, hence
>the jpeg compression)and it runs extremely sluggishly.
Others have explained the difference in size you're seeing, but here's some
food for thought.
You may find that Director actually runs slower if it has to decompress
jpeg images. If the images are imported as .bmp or some other
non-compressed format, Dir won't have to work the CPU as hard. Director
does compress these members with its own compression, though - I seem to
recall somebody mentioning years ago that it was similar to the pict
compression.
And, just guessing here, but it seems you're attempting to animate 640x480
images in real time. Most computers can't do this even without Director's
overhead. Most folks use one of the compressed video formats when the need
to push that many pixels comes up. You might try converting the animation
into an MPEG, QT, or AVI file and take advantage of the direct-to-stage
property of these members. You would need to use one of the lossy
compression codecs for QT or AVI (MPEG is already a lossy format), but you
should be able to come to a very good compression/quality compromise. You'd
be surprised how many people can't even see the losses in MPEG or some of
the newer codecs like Sorensen.
HTH
--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin' :)
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
