comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: 6.3 reactions?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: 6.3 reactions? [message #48640 is a reply to message #48554]

Tue, 02 May 2006 14:58

Mark Hadfield
Messages: 783
Registered: May 1995

Senior Member

Michael Galloy wrote:
> I'm pretty excited to see whether or not Motion JPEG 2000 is as great
> for animations as it seems at first glance. MPEG has always seemed to be
> a bad format for scientific visualization; Motion JPEG 2000 corrects a
> lot of its weaknesses.

I did some quick experiments: Files take a long time to write (with
default parameters). I haven't found anything (other than IDL and a few
high-end video editing programs) that will read them.

In my experience the best format for scientific animations by far is AVI
(Microsoft Video 1 codec, set quality to a highish value like 85%).

--
Mark Hadfield "Kei puwaha te tai nei, Hoea tahi tatou"
m.hadfield@niwa.co.nz
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Michael Galloy on Mon, 01 May 2006 22:52
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: JD Smith on Thu, 04 May 2006 18:02
		Re: 6.3 reactions? By: Mark Hadfield on Tue, 02 May 2006 14:58

Previous Topic:	Re: filling an empty array
Next Topic:	Animation formats revisited

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Oct 11 13:16:29 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.96314 seconds