Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 20:41
by juLiE
thanx for posting Ruud

i am using the same codec (indeo 5.2).

when i had posted this, i forgot *not* to deinterlace again (since i had done this in the first compression). also i was *not* using "bicubic" (had it set to "nearest neighbor"), but then changed to that.

the 2 observations above helped overall, but it still looks shabby to me sensitive eyes...maybe there's nothing i can do here?

QUESTION: i'm a bit confused when you say "...first full decompress...". could you be more specific because i'm not unaware of the ability to "decompress"...maybe je suis stupide? ;-)

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 22:37
by DoofBoy
virtual dub should do the job for most of your encoding
indeo codec, or morgan codec 320 X 240 is a good basic compression set up to encode your files with, and out put at this size is ok

enjoy, resolume 2.2 is fantastic ....
well done bart and Eddy

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 14:25
by Anonymous
Originally posted by DoofBoy
virtual dub should do the job for most of your encoding
bonjour DoofBoy

thanx...and yes, my posting on this topic stated that i'm using indeo 5.2 codec. i'm also using virtualdubMOD which works fine (i save/load settings and i use job control for batching).

i was concerned about quality, but did more tests recently, and i think i'm just being picky (coming from a filmmaker background i can't help it, ha).

so i'll stop requesting info about my concern because my question should have been posted at http://www.videohelp.com. thanx to all who replied. :)

and yes, Bart and Eddy, great application! :)

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 14:32
by juLiE
Originally posted by Anonymous
bonjour DoofBoy
was really posted by me juLiE