wrote in message ...
:Jerry: wrote:

[ apologies if this message is a duplicate ]

wrote in message
...
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.


We are not debating about what the OP wants to do but you assertion
that the DV codec is non lousy. My suggestion was to you, not the OP,
that you check your assertions with a vector scope - I can understand
why you might wish not to and yet again try and deflect the argument
back to the OP's problem!
--
Jerry - on an different NNTP server.
Someone managed to break the other one!