Movie-JPEG (was Re: [updates] 10 for 3.2a)

Karl Ramberg karl.ramberg at chello.se
Thu Nov 29 06:54:23 UTC 2001


Also as a sidenote: there are some mpeg4 libs out there that
compresses files to a fraction of the mpeg2 files. 
Good for distributing over the net etc.
http://www.projectmayo.com/about/index.php
http://www.3ivx.com/


Run time: 20:40   
34945.avi (38 MB)    mpeg4 ! 
34945.mpg (365.9 MB) mpeg2
Karl
 


John.Maloney at disney.com wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Nick, this is very helpful.
> 
> You're right that stand-alone frames are much easier to edit.
> In my experiments with Squeak JPEG movies, JPEG movie are
> generally 1.2 to 3 times larger than the original MPEG movie at
> similar quality levels. So MPEG is definitely preferable for
> compactness in final distribution.
> 
> But  there are many advantages to a format that can be authored
> and edited in Squeak without the need to buy any additional software.
> I'm hoping that we can find a way to export a Squeak JPEG movies
> in a form that can be imported into a high-end video program and
> turned into a movie in MPEG, Quicktime, or other popular digital
> video formats for those who desire to publish their movies outside
> the Squeak community. (I believe that Adobe Premier, for example,
> can create a movie from a folder full of individual frames, and it
> would be easy to export all the frames of a JPEG movie.)
> 
>         -- John
> 
> At 7:08 PM +0000 11/28/01, Nick Brown wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:27:44 -0800, John.Maloney at disney.com wrote:
> >
> >>How widely used is it? Do programs such as Quicktime deal
> >>with it?
> >
> >My aproximate understanding is that it's never used for "end product",
> >as MJPEG files are much larger than their MPEG equivalents. The
> >mid-level video capture hardware (Matrox, etc) seems to like using it
> >- I think the key point is that its far easier to edit compared to a
> >file format where you only get a key frame once in a while (ie regular
> >MPEG).
> >
> >Most of the cheaper tv-card style video grabbers that I've seen don't
> >bother with it, and just go straight to MPEG.
> >
> >I suppose this boils down to, "Support MJPEG if its nice and easy, but
> >don't bust a gut over it".
> >
> >
> >HTH,
> >Nick Brown




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list