> 1) in regards to windows movie maker if one wants a decent quality the > compression ends up 1MB per minute which is not good enough as > talks/lectures tend to be around 45 minutes
Reasonable people differ on what qualifies as decent. :) About the only way to reduce the file size further for dial up users is to decrease the resolution. Drop to 160x120 and you dramatically decrease the file size. The other option might be to cut the frame rate to 15fps, which will make motion choppy but does decrease file size. You might be able to save a few megabytes by using a MPEG-4 codec (DivX/XviD) after exporting from Windows Movie Maker. > one can safe on the level of a dial up but there the webcam quality is > pretty bad > > 2) regarding powerpoint yes there are a few powerpoint compressiontools > but you still have to pay I look for a totally free one I don't know of any. I don't think there are any because the person willing to spend $200-400 for a version of Office with PowerPoint probably isn't going to balk at $30 for some compression. > ZIPs by now are increasingly problematic as many e-mail recipients filter > them out. Like my university sees every zip file as a virus threat and > they don't come to my inbox. Hosting the files and linking to a .zip is almost never filtered by email. > As I work with many in developing countries the ones I deal with have a > computer but they don't have money to buy all kind of software. > and I often have to do multi outputs as sometimes I have blind people in > the audience sometimes deaf people (that why I have the powerpoint and use > the audio to describe what is on the powerpoint). Is open office better > sizewise ? Open Office and virtually every other office product will result in even more bloat. Apple's Keynote is worse than PowerPoint in this regard, if that's possible. Couldn't you do video as one output for blind and deaf people and include subtitling (and/or use an overlay of text) to avoid needing many formats? Maybe I'm not looking at the issue correctly, but if a blind person clicks on a video file, they still hear the audio track and a deaf person would get the visual experience with subtitles. > Not all of them have fast internet access so webcam is often not an > option. But in general I found MSN messenger 7.0 work very nicely to give > presentations but for the webcam fast internet access is needed. You keep referring to a Webcam here and I'm not sure I'm following that part of it. On one hand you are talking about recording video and outputting something from Windows Movie Maker. Here you mention using a Webcam for (I assume) live video streaming? Is this a separate project or are the two related and I'm just not getting it? :) Jake Ludington http://www.mediablab.com http://www.podcastingstarterkit.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
