comp.os.ms-windows.video
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: simple, short, and soundless

Subject: Re: simple, short, and soundless
From: "JeroenDeJong"
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:56:22 +0100
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.video
"Rob Perkins" <[email protected]xxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
> Hi,
>
> My company makes software which for years now has included the ability
> to make movies out of progressive results from a simulation. Basically
> we used the VFW stuff combined with a library we commissioned to make
> short 30-frame AVI files, none of which even approach 30fps, (usually
> it's 4 fps or so) which could easily play in Windows Media Player,
> without the watcher needing more than a default Windows installation.
>
> We used the INDEO codec to encode the movies, because it, along with an
> encoding "codec" was included with Windows. Well, now the INDEO codec is
> gone from the default setup, and we're not sure what to choose next.
>
> In making our movies we generate between four and 100 palleted BMP
> files, usually 800x600 in size, with about 16 colors. We don't need
> streaming optimization, or really anything "Internet-y"

ok so why don't make an animation of those pictures with, say,
animation shop [part of paintshop pro]. You can choose how
many [milli] seconds every picture is displayed and get a
mucho smaller endresult with jpeg compression.
And that way you don't need any mediaplayer. just an
internet browser that can read animated gif's.

--
Greetings from Jeroen

> Which codec will:
>
> -- let us distribute to our 500 customers an encoding "codec" to create
> MPEG 4 (or MPEG 2) animations from our frame graphics?
> -- have compression which doesn't alter the colors of the image, the way
> the MS-CRAM codec does?
> -- be available on a default Windows Media Player 10 installation (or at
> least be downloadable after the installation?)
>
> I looked on fourcc.org and a couple of other places, but the focus at
> those places seems to be on the streaming video and videophone codecs,
> none of which I need or want. In short, I'm lost in the complexity of it
> all, when all I really want is something comparatively simple.
>
> Rob



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: simple, short, and soundless, JeroenDeJong <=