CompuServe Messages

>> "After capturing __several minutes__ of video, […] it wasn't perfect << This is true. The PAR has to use a _constant_ compression factor for the entire captured segment. This means that the most complex frame of video determines the amount compression applied to the _entire_ segment. Frame dropouts are likely the cause of using to low of compression factor for the segment (read operator error). Thus, shorter captures will yield higher quality. I, however, do not do rotoscoping with the PAR, so I am not the most qualified to discuss it. >> "it is a great value and an excellent choice for those applications that do not required the level of performance of a disk array." << Also true. The PAR is a JPEG compression device. By its very nature, it cannot be equal in quality to an uncompressed disk array like an Abekas. However, given the 10 factor price difference between the PAR and a DDR, I would say the PAR certainly has acceptable quality for its price. >> the manufacturer does not state that you will have to use a low, or lower resolution to get that kind of transfer rate. << The manufacturer's claim is correct. The resolution remains at 752×480. The transfer rate is tied directly to the performance of the dedicated hard drive. What influences the quality is the amount of JPEG compression needed to fit the data beneath the transfer rate of the drive. Note that the amount of compression is calculated individually for each frame of an animation. >> He was also using a Mac. << I was not aware that there was a version for the Mac. I though there was only Amiga and PC versions. It _would_ be logical to make a Mac version, though. — James — MAP —