Put Jpeg's on DVD view on television

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tim, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. Tim

    Tim Guest

    How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD, Picture
    size 3mb

    Thanks,
    Tim
     
    Tim, Aug 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim

    Not Very Guest

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:00:40 GMT, "Tim" <> wrote:

    > How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD, Picture
    > size 3mb


    That depends upon the player. In the case of my JVC DVD player, it would take
    at least 60 seconds to display.
     
    Not Very, Aug 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim

    Not Very Guest

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:00:40 GMT, "Tim" <> wrote:

    > How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD, Picture
    > size 3mb


    That depends upon the player. In the case of my JVC DVD player, it would take
    at least 60 seconds to display.

    Your best method would be to reduce the size of the image to, say, 640 x 480.
    The TV will still display the image fine and rapidly. You will also be able to
    fit a heap more images on the disc.
     
    Not Very, Aug 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Tim

    Guest

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:09:17 +1000, Not Very <>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:00:40 GMT, "Tim" <> wrote:
    >
    >> How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD, Picture
    >> size 3mb

    >
    >That depends upon the player. In the case of my JVC DVD player, it would take
    >at least 60 seconds to display.
    >
    >Your best method would be to reduce the size of the image to, say, 640 x 480.
    >The TV will still display the image fine and rapidly. You will also be able to
    >fit a heap more images on the disc.



    And your very best method would be to use Ulead DVD Picture Show 2.

    MJ
     
    , Aug 29, 2003
    #4
  5. In article <>, <> wrote:
    >>> How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD, Picture
    >>> size 3mb

    >>That depends upon the player. In the case of my JVC DVD player, it would take
    >>at least 60 seconds to display.

    >
    >And your very best method would be to use Ulead DVD Picture Show 2.


    Man, if it takes 60 seconds to render the real image, damn straight
    you'd be better off switching to a dvd creator like Picture Show.
    Instantaneous display.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Tim

    Guest

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:52:18 +0000 (UTC),
    (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:

    >In article <>, <> wrote:
    >>>> How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD, Picture
    >>>> size 3mb
    >>>That depends upon the player. In the case of my JVC DVD player, it would take
    >>>at least 60 seconds to display.

    >>
    >>And your very best method would be to use Ulead DVD Picture Show 2.

    >
    >Man, if it takes 60 seconds to render the real image, damn straight
    >you'd be better off switching to a dvd creator like Picture Show.
    >Instantaneous display.


    I should add that DVD Picture show also puts images on to CDs, so,
    provided your dvd player can play svcds (which any half respectable
    player does), then you don't need a dvd burner. Just a normal cd
    burner. The image quality is excellent, even on a 42in plasma. You can
    get 100s of images on a 650/700mb cd, and it's quick to create the
    disc. I've tried about 6 progs that do this job and the Ulead one
    kicked the crap out of them all.

    MJ
     
    , Aug 31, 2003
    #6
  7. Tim

    BLueCoBra Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:52:18 +0000 (UTC),
    > (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, <>

    wrote:
    > >>>> How long does it take to view a jpeg on TV reading it from a DVD,

    Picture
    > >>>> size 3mb
    > >>>That depends upon the player. In the case of my JVC DVD player, it

    would take
    > >>>at least 60 seconds to display.
    > >>
    > >>And your very best method would be to use Ulead DVD Picture Show 2.

    > >
    > >Man, if it takes 60 seconds to render the real image, damn straight
    > >you'd be better off switching to a dvd creator like Picture Show.
    > >Instantaneous display.

    >
    > I should add that DVD Picture show also puts images on to CDs, so,
    > provided your dvd player can play svcds (which any half respectable
    > player does), then you don't need a dvd burner. Just a normal cd
    > burner. The image quality is excellent, even on a 42in plasma. You can
    > get 100s of images on a 650/700mb cd, and it's quick to create the
    > disc. I've tried about 6 progs that do this job and the Ulead one
    > kicked the crap out of them all.
    >
    > MJ


    Just curious if one of those 6 progs was Roxio's Easy CD & DVD Creator 6 and
    if it was, what was your opinon of it?
    TIA

    BLueCoBra
    --
    A computer once beat in a game of chess.
    But it was no match for me in kick boxing.
     
    BLueCoBra, Sep 1, 2003
    #7
  8. Tim

    Guest

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:25:35 -0400, "BLueCoBra"
    <bluecobra@*nospam*intergate.com> wrote:


    >>
    >> I should add that DVD Picture show also puts images on to CDs, so,
    >> provided your dvd player can play svcds (which any half respectable
    >> player does), then you don't need a dvd burner. Just a normal cd
    >> burner. The image quality is excellent, even on a 42in plasma. You can
    >> get 100s of images on a 650/700mb cd, and it's quick to create the
    >> disc. I've tried about 6 progs that do this job and the Ulead one
    >> kicked the crap out of them all.
    >>
    >> MJ

    >
    >Just curious if one of those 6 progs was Roxio's Easy CD & DVD Creator 6 and
    >if it was, what was your opinon of it?
    >TIA
    >
    >BLueCoBra


    No. I haven't had Easy CD on my pc for years. Nero and Winoncd were
    the only burning progs that I tried. Both good burning progs but not
    so good at picture shows, although Winoncd wasn't too bad.

    MJ
     
    , Sep 1, 2003
    #8
  9. Tim

    wally Guest

    Re: Put Jpeg's on DVD view on television -- Why Bother?

    Still photos on a DVD are going to have at best 720x480 pixels.

    This would make a really crappy 4x6 inch print, why do you think it would look
    decent blown up to 17" or more on a TV set?

    --wally.
     
    wally, Sep 1, 2003
    #9
  10. Tim

    wally Guest

    Re: Put Jpeg's on DVD view on television -- Why Bother?

    In article <bj2lsn$19tp$>, (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
    >wally <> wrote:
    >>Still photos on a DVD are going to have at best 720x480 pixels.
    >>
    >>This would make a really crappy 4x6 inch print, why do you think it would look

    >
    >>decent blown up to 17" or more on a TV set?

    >
    >people manage to deal with watching DVDs at this resolution.
    >

    Motion vs stills.

    Resize an image to 720 x 480 and display it full screen on your 15-17" monitor
    it'll pretty much look like crap. Bigger on a TV set won't help.

    Now when HDTV gets common and you can display 1940x1080 pixel images
    it might be tolerable, but DVD players won't output this resolution,
    we'll need some thing like CF to HDTV adapters.

    1280x1024 images full screen on a 17" LCD look pretty decent, so perhaps a
    memory card to HDTV device will work -- there are tons of memory card to TV
    converters, many cameras have a TV out, I'd suggest you at least look at some
    jpeg still images on the TV to see if they are "good enough" before going
    thru the expense and hassle of putting stills on a DVD. I did, hence my why
    bother comment.

    But there remains a problem with portrait format images -- can't very well
    turn the TV on its side every few frames.

    --wally.
     
    wally, Sep 2, 2003
    #10
  11. Tim

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Put Jpeg's on DVD view on television -- Why Bother?

    Jason O'Rourke wrote:

    > wally <> wrote:
    >
    >>Still photos on a DVD are going to have at best 720x480 pixels.
    >>
    >>This would make a really crappy 4x6 inch print, why do you think it would look
    >>decent blown up to 17" or more on a TV set?

    >
    >
    > people manage to deal with watching DVDs at this resolution.
    >

    DVDs move. That makes a major difference!
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 2, 2003
    #11
  12. Re: Put Jpeg's on DVD view on television -- Why Bother?

    Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
    >>>This would make a really crappy 4x6 inch print, why do you think it would look
    >>>decent blown up to 17" or more on a TV set?

    >> people manage to deal with watching DVDs at this resolution.
    >>

    >DVDs move. That makes a major difference!


    So hit the pause button. It works well enough, and it's much easier, not
    to mention more portable, to have people sitting in the living room around
    a large screen TV than around a 19" monitor in the office room.

    Most of my web pics are at 750x500, which is only a hair different from
    this. Is more resolution nice? Sure. But is it convenient, no. The
    resolution gets used for cropping and printing. Some TVs do have a
    memory stick port and may actual show the image at higher resolution. In
    time we'll have this feature. Until then, we'll survive just fine.

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Sep 2, 2003
    #12
  13. Tim

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Put Jpeg's on DVD view on television -- Why Bother?

    Jason O'Rourke wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    >>Jason O'Rourke wrote:
    >>
    >>>>This would make a really crappy 4x6 inch print, why do you think it would look
    >>>>decent blown up to 17" or more on a TV set?
    >>>
    >>>people manage to deal with watching DVDs at this resolution.
    >>>

    >>
    >>DVDs move. That makes a major difference!

    >
    >
    > So hit the pause button. It works well enough, and it's much easier, not
    > to mention more portable, to have people sitting in the living room around
    > a large screen TV than around a 19" monitor in the office room.
    >
    > Most of my web pics are at 750x500, which is only a hair different from
    > this. Is more resolution nice? Sure. But is it convenient, no. The
    > resolution gets used for cropping and printing. Some TVs do have a
    > memory stick port and may actual show the image at higher resolution. In
    > time we'll have this feature. Until then, we'll survive just fine.
    >


    TVs use persistence of vision (part of the human perceptual process) to
    work a bit of trickery to make the picture you see seem to be of double
    resolution. If you pause the picture, you lose that advantage, reducing
    the perceived resolution by half. DVD players (at least mine does),
    seem to alternate two fields in pause mode to minimize this apparent
    loss but displaying a still picture on a TV is not satisfactory in MY
    experience. Perhaps your standards are lower.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 3, 2003
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,369
    Paul - xxx
    Jun 13, 2004
  2. kl
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    966
    Martin Brown
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. certsnsearches

    Exiff-jpeg and jpeg

    certsnsearches, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,335
    Jim Townsend
    Jan 7, 2004
  4. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,314
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Conrad

    jpeg and jpeg 2000

    Conrad, Jan 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,752
    Barry Pearson
    Feb 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page