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

John.Maloney at disney.com John.Maloney at disney.com
Wed Nov 28 20:34:55 UTC 2001


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