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.
-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