"Steve G. Hilliard" wrote: > While I'm no expert on imaging or QT, I would suggest converting each to a > jpeg, since this format presents photos so well, and produces quite > compact files. If you have any control over jpeg quality you might want > to do a trial run at different settings, because jpegs can often be > compressed at 50% quality and still look good enough for the web. I > would think the same would be true for movies. (I'm surprised it lets you > produce QT's from tiffs, because they're huge! Streaming tiffs would take > a LOT of computing power. I'd go for a Linux beowulf cluster ;-) One word of caution for this approach. JPEG is a compression algorithm that loses pixel information each time a file is saved. Standard TIFF does not use compression and thus no pixel information is lost. Consequently, TIFF files are very large compared to JPEG. In the final analysis, TIFF provides a better, but larger image. If you want to string together images as a QuickTime movie, compression of each image is not necessary (and may result in image deterioration) as QuickTime files are compressed when made. On the Mac platform, the file formats of choice (IMO) for storing still images for incorporation into a QuickTime movie are PICT and Photoshop native. No pixel information is lost and when they are incorporated into a QuickTime movie by QuickTime editing software, the final movie is compressed to minimize file size. Just my $0.02 worth. -- Tony Schountz, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Mesa State College mailto:tschount@mesastate.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:54:03 EST