«

<> wrote in message news:...
> :Jerry: wrote:
>>
>> [ apologies if this message is a duplicate ]
>>
>> <> wrote in message news:...
>> > Ken Maltby wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > If anyone else would care to repeat this test I would be interested
>> > in
>> > their results.
>> >
>>
>> Apart from the suspect methodology, as outlined by Peter (re .avi
>> 'wrappers' and what they actually contain), might I suggest the test
>> to be done by sending the play-out to both a vector scope and
>> histogram rather than to a (LCD/Plasma) TV that will have all sorts of
>> error correction built in.
>
> The guy is using a $99 editing program. I doubt if he has a vector
> scope in his basement to prove his eye is lying to him. I think he just
> wants to get his project done. My suggestion will allow him to proceed
> with a balky program. The fact that he has not chimed back in suggests
> to me that he is busily finishing his movie.
> -Bill

I am certainly one who honors the practical and I
agree that, for the OP, your method would work.
Your general assertion about DV could be viewed
as a common misconception, that needed correction
least it lead some readers astray.

It should be noted though, that the OP can do exactly
what he was asking for using the Batch Convert feature
of Ulead's VideoStudio.

Luck;
Ken

<> wrote in message news:...
>G Hardy wrote:

> Haven't you just proven my point. If you are just combining a bunch of
> stills
> into a movie, and the program does not re-render the project, then there
> is no
> loss of quality. That was what I was saying in the first place

No, because you suggested that when the stills are made into a movie, it
should use the DV codec, which is a lossy render.

I can see that this is a discussion that's going nowhere. Perhaps the OP
will review all the stuff that's been written and make up his own mind
what's best.

wrote

>The guy is using a $99 editing program. I doubt if he has a vector
>scope in his basement to prove his eye is lying to him. I think he just
>wants to get his project done. My suggestion will allow him to proceed
>with a balky program. The fact that he has not chimed back in suggests
>to me that he is busily finishing his movie.

I am not the OP but having hijacked the thread I am indeed getting on
with it

I had to give up on the 5-sec interval shooting with the Ricoh Caplio
R6 though - the finished 25fps movie was far too jumpy.

And there was no way to do faster interval shooting, without spending
some serious money (DSLR & a remote controller).

So I bought a Logitech Quickcam webcam. Webcams are so dirt cheap that
I bought the most expensive one I could find, in the hope that it
might be reasonable. It's OK, but nothing as good as the cheapest
digital camera shooting low-res stills. The webcam actually does
960x720 max which is reasonable for generating a 576-line movie.

Pinnacle 10.5 handles the folder with a few thousand images OK. Very
very slowly in some areas e.g. configuring the "duration" of each
image (a wholly suspect concept if making a 'one image per frame'
movie) is very slow because the program applies the value immediately
to all the images held in memory, so it goes away for a while. Then it
crashes about 70% of the time, but it does save its config so I get
there eventually. The actual movie generation is reasonably quick.

A friend has a Mac which comes ready with some software for this, and
this is about 10x faster than Pinnacle.