CompuServe Messages

Hi, Martin…The output would be to VHS for now and the better the input, the better VHS looks…I know resolution is limited with VHS, but, the better the source, the lower noise, etc., the better a VHS picture looks and that would be my primary means of distributing my animated show at this point in time…(It's a pilot, a "work in progress"<g> destined to be 22 minutes and 30 seconds) not many people have BetacamSP decks at the ready!<BG>And VHS is cheap and easy to show friends and potential investors, etc. If things work out the way I hope they will, I would be able to transfer my Targa files to D1 or D2. That is rather pricey to do here in Detroit ($500 an hour at one post-production house, for example). But it is the way I want to go eventually. In the meantime, I need a good but less expensive way of previewing tests and finished animation. FLCs are limited, I hate AVI and QT and I keep reading horrible things about some of the other boards out right now. I don't want dropped frames and I don't want an installation hassle. I want a board that will show me what I want to see in tests and be good enough quality to make a preview tape from, saving me money in the long run. On the point about broadcast quality, I agree the term is abused… maybe this should be called "apparent broadcast quality" because it deals with how humans perceive what they see. From an article I read in Multimedia Today (April-June 1995 pgs. 38-43), MPEG-2 looks for redundancy in the video bitstream and keeps what is necessary in the signal. The examples given mention how if certain backgrounds or objects in each frame remain the same, that information is not repeated over and over. However it works, it keeps the high quality, reduces the endless repetition of data and comes out with a smaller size file of data with essentially the same picture image we would be cognitive of while viewing. That's where the high compression would come in…less compression when the background is changing or there is a lot of movement. Guess MTV won't be easy to compress!<g> I want to see it first myself,or at least find out more, even though I'm not from Missouri.<g> The smaller investment and smaller data storage needs of the MARS 2 along with the alleged high quality has my curiosity peaked! The PAR and PVR require much more data storage and even used, cost more at this time. I understand you can't get too much time out of a PAR without going to much higher compression and friends tell me that's when the picture suffers. If what I've read about MARS 2 and MPEG-2 in general is true, you could get 10 minutes of glorious animation in about 600 megabytes…and if friends are correct in data storage requirements and record/playback times for the PAR, that's almost 10 times better! I'm, of course, still seeking the truth. I haven't ruled out anything yet. Kevin