resizing to 640 by 480

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:59:24 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <>
Gave us:

>"k" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> I read on the web that a video at 640 by 480 running at 2 meg per
>> second would look the same as a video at 320 by 240 running a 2 meg
>> per second. Granted the web isn't always the most truthful source.
>
>Can you please stop using the word "meg"?
>
>There's actually TWO meanings of it here!!
>
>Meaning #1: 1,048,576 BYTES
>Meaning #2 (as in video): 1,000,000 BITS
>
>OK, let's convert so they're using the same unit here:
>
>#1: 8,388,608 BITS
>#2: 1,000,000 BITS
>
>So...which one are you actually meaning?
>
>Even if that statement means a 640x480 @ 2megs (#1) is equal to 320x240 @
>2megs (#2), it's still wrong, because the 640x480 one is going to take up
>2.1x more space per pixel, because it's using 8.4x more data (ie, a 100MB
>320x240 = 840MB 640x480), but the actual area is only 4x larger, so
>8.4/4=2.1.
>
>Regardless, that statement is wrong, and if you re-encode something it will
>always look worse, and it will never be equal. Even if I take a 320x240
>Uncompressed AVI and encode it into an 8,000kbps MPEG-1 video at 320x240, it
>will look worse than that Uncompressed AVI, not equal. Encoding brings in
>new flaws in algorithms & even if you're giving it more bits to work with,
>those errors which just naturally happen due to encoding will still happen.
>Granted, you wouldn't notice the errors -- in *this* example -- unless you
>magnify it a few times.
>
>If I said I was going to convert a 3,000kbps Xvid to a 3,000kbps MPEG-2,
>then to a 4,000kbps Xvid, which Xvid is going to look better, the 3000kbps
>or the 4000kbps? [It's the 3000]
>

WRONG GROUP, YA ****ING RETARDS.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DVD.

GET A CLUE.

DarkMatter

[vinney]

for resizing I can offer Vidcrop PRO...

vinney