How come so few people are trying out 640x480? It seems like most
people are shrinking to 320x240, and then they're are people wanted to
play with larger formats -- like 960x540 or1280x720. I'm guessing it's
because people have these HDV cameras and want to use all those
pixels... but it seems
I think the biggest reason more people aren't doing 640 X 480 is the de-interlacing problem. It takes a long time to deinterlace your video and it's difficult to get good results.Anyone out there have a good way to do this?
-VerdiOn 1/20/06, Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How come so few
Jen Simmons wrote:
How come so few people are trying out 640x480? It seems like most
people are shrinking to 320x240
Personally, I don't have the time (processing) or space (hard drive) or
equipment (cheap video camera) to do so... If every feed I subscribed to
went from 320x240 to 640x480
I have the Sony HC1, and for my Quicktime feed I'm using 400 x 225.
Weird I know, but looks pretty good and should handle being blow up bigger.
Sorenson Squeeze has a deinterlace, which isn't really necessary if you're
shrinking your video. I'm not sure how much processing time it adds
but I'd
Deinterlacing yes a pain, big dissapointment to me that there werent
more free/cheap OS X deinterlacing tools.
DivX might be able to gain a significant advantage here as there is a
deinterlacing option that works built into its converter on Windows
and Mac. Im still experimenting with it, dunno
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this here but it looks like you're talking about posting a videoblog with a 1920 X 1080 resolution. Which makes me think how few people have a screen capable of displaying that.-Verdi
On 1/18/06, nikadigital [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
next time i will try your
I agree. The most I would ever aim for at the moment is 720P, which is
1280x720 which seems to be what nikadigital was trying. I dont know
why that didnt work, as its also 16:9 so it should really have
distorted anything.
I dont know what the situation is like in the USA, but here in the UK
a
Its probably not stretched vertically, but rather squashed horizontally.
Ive got a differnt SOny HDV camera but I believe the reason behind
this is the same. The 16:9 HDV footage is captured at 1440x1080
resolution, but to playback at the correct aspect ratio, it should be
displayed at 1920x1080.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Its probably not stretched vertically, but rather squashed
horizontally.
Ive got a differnt SOny HDV camera but I believe the reason behind
this is the same. The 16:9 HDV footage is captured at 1440x1080
