SCOUG-HELP Mailing List Archives

<< Previous Message <<

Date:	Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:47:45 PDT7
From:	Peter Skye <pskye@peterskye.com >
Reply-To:	scoug-help@scoug.com
To:	scoug-help@scoug.com
Subject:	SCOUG-Help: Re: Supposed OS/2 Port of FFMPEG (?)

Content Type: text/plain

=====================================================
If you are responding to someone asking for help who
may not be a member of this list, be sure to use the
REPLY TO ALL feature of your email program.
=====================================================

J. R. Fox wrote:
>
> > the Download link there can give you a .tar.gz which
> > all you have to do is run through your compiler.
>
> Oh, so all we need to do is compile the source code . . . .
> Maybe something YOU do, but not the sort of thing *I* do.

Well, it was _you_ who wanted the program! :)))

> > that fantastic surfing video image you played at
> > the SCOUG meeting was, iirc, shot as HD video
>
> The best looking shot-on-video stuff I've seen
> has been HD. (I think those may still be big,
> bulky, heavy, very expensive camera rigs, though.)

The hand-held cameras are quite small and not that pricey. They even
have wireless hookups so you don't have to carry the hard drive around.
But if you buy one, spend the money and get the very best lens
available; it _does_ make a difference.

> I know that some more budget and mobility-conscious
> filmmakers, who had to shoot on video, have used PAL Betacam. The Euro,
> PAL-system footage may need some add'l. post-processing, but I think it can
> still give noticeably better resolution than we get here with our NTSC.

Resolution vs. frame rate, it's a tradeoff. The sharpness will take a
hit with the post-processing PAL-to-NTSC conversion. Go for HD which is
so much better and converts so much cleaner. There's a new movie out
called Two Brothers about two tiger cubs (the director has done some
other outstanding work, notably The Bear and Quest For Fire) and a lot
of it was shot on HD and then transferred to film. Spend a few bucks
and check it out. Right after spending a few bucks to check out
Fahrenheit 911, of course. (I don't know what equipment Michael Moore
used.)

WarpVision on OS/2 should be able to display full HD resolution if you
have a big enough monitor. Actually, HD is a bunch of different
selectable resolutions but the main one is 1920 pixels wide. The
digital projection systems in movie theaters (why do all the chains
spell it "theatres"? is it like disk/disc or gray/grey?) have a couple
of different resolutions iirc but I think they're somewhere around 3K
pixels wide which, on a 40' wide screen, is about 6 pixels per inch.
There's a huge debate about how you can't compare pixels to film lines
to eye resolution but 2K pixels wide seems to work quite nicely thank
you very much and 3K in a movie theater is pushing the limit of what
20/20 vision can discern.

Steven L., what's the technical specs for the film resolution you've
been working with for umpteen years? ShowScan is 35mm film at 60fps?
The higher frame rate creates a higher perceived sharpness because the
object edges integrate faster which gives higher edge slew rate which
means a sharper picture. And the graininess is lower because of the
faster sampling of the random grain patterns.

I better shut up before the webmaster throws me off this list.

- Peter

=====================================================

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-help".

For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".

=====================================================

Return to [ 28 | June | 2004 ]

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.