X-Dennis_Eccleston
Imported Account
Apr 10, 2001, 11:41 AM
Post #2 of 2
(546 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: Resolution/Quicktime
|
Can't Post
|
|
: I know PAL has more scanlines than NTSC hence it's resolution is better, but when shooting for a medium-sized Quicktime file for CD-Rom, which format gives the cleanest picture, NTSC or PAL in progressive scan or interlaced? Would we see a difference and what would it manifest as?
: Progressive scan will give a cleaner edge, but what is the difference here between NTSC and PAL?
From a non XL1 owner (wanabee); I would comment that on CDR you may need two formats. Use interlaced for TV viewing, for which I use SVCD to be played on DVD for all my home video as it's much better than tape. My cheaper DVD (Apex) will play PAL or NTSC (so PAL is better) but I would play safe and base format on viewing location but SVCD is mpeg2 not Quicktime. For computer viewing use a deinterlace filter or you see lots of motion jaggies. PAL will give a slighly larger picture rather than much sharper when viewed on a typical 1024 x 768 unless set on full screen. I prefer mpeg2 to Quicktime if your viwers have a player codec (Ligos etc.) I note that the enthusiasts software (TMPGEnc for SVCD and Virtual Dub for DivX version of MPEG4) works as well or better than many commercial codecs when converting avi files to mpeg. DivX is very good for such a small file size being free of most artifacts in good lighting. It's unfortunate that it is used mainly be video pirates and the lack of a standard Windows Media Player codec rules out wide distribution.
|
