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!

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

wrote in message ...
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.