Sorry, beg to differ, we consistently come up with much better and
smaller qt h264 files than wmv9. this may be because our compression
guy has a lot of tricks that he can do to make qt stuff really shine.
hes been at this for like 20 years and has lots of secret sauces that
work great with qt, but not with wmv. to his credit he does bang on
wmv a lot to try and get it looking at good as possible, but just
never does a well as qt. if you just port from a program to qt and wmv
you might get comparable stuff, but there are lots of compression
tricks that can make things smaller and prettier (sorry the
compression guy wont let his sekrets out, its his biz, if he told me
he would have to kill me). I know a few that help, but he really does
better than i do when he gets at it!
jeff
On Feb 16, 2008, at 1:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
except making a nicely compressed and good quality wmv file is
pretty much an oxymoron
To be fair, WMV9, On2VP6, and H264 are all comparable for quality,
data rate, and CPU requirements.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
