wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: MPEG4 v JPEG compression
Mickael Therer 2005-Jul-13 20:09:00
I'm staying away from anything else than jpeg now,
because the results are not so good and unpredictible
when you look at it closely also sorenson or mp4 are much
more processor intensive and were meant for video.
here are 2 old compare pages sorry I haven't written
down the discussions we had on the French list at the
time but the conclusion was to best keep away from
anything else than jpeg for qtvr to be on the safe side
with good results.
first page compares size results for 50% in jpeg-sor-mp4
http://www.mediapiculture.net/test/codecs/test_comp.html
second page compares jpeg-sor-mp4 for a target size of 450kb
http://www.mediapiculture.net/test/codecs/test_comp2.html
-m
--- In #removed#, Aldo Hoeben <#removed#> wrote:
> A word of caution about using other compressors than JPEG:
> Some other viewers/applications than Quicktime can not decode panoramas
> compressed with other codecs.
>
> If you ever want to play back your quicktimes in other players such as
> PTViewer, PangeaVR*, Cubic Explorer*, or SPi-V, you should use JPEG
instead.
>
> 'do
>
> *: not 100% sure, these viewers COULD be using quicktime in the
background.
>
> bruce_hemming wrote:
>
> > Having been admonished by the wagging finger on the prep server over
> > the size of my
> > submission I did a little experiment with the following results.
> > Compressed at 51% with
> > JPEG = 2.7 meg file, compressed at 51% with MPEG4 = 1.9 meg file.
> >
> > Quality looked identical to me - any pano gurus care to comment on
> > which codec gives
> > best results? Out of all available that is - not just the two that I
> > have used as examples.
> >
> > Could save some wrist slapping next time around.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bruce
> >
>