CompuServe Thread

#video playback cards

3 messages in this thread
#1510From: Joseph A. Abate, M.Jan 3, 1995 10:54 PM
I read an article by someone who discussed Action Media II board for AVI files vs. MPEG board for MPEG files. If I intend to create a digital library of medical images (ultrasound, X-ray, pathologic specimens, etc.), is one choice obviously better than the other? Mention was made that AVI files are less expensive to capture and edit – why is that? Joe
#1528From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPJan 4, 1995 10:47 AM
Joe, It seems to me that with the advent of large distribution mediums ie. CD-ROM, and digital manipulation of data (AVI and MPEG), that your biggest concern will be with the quality of your input. You can always distribute that data in either form as long as you quality of input is better than either form. I believe that MPEG will overcome AVI in mass consumer distribution, but right now, it does seem that AVI has a better market. -John
#2060From: Timothy LiebeJan 16, 1995 1:36 PM
Joe: >I read an article by someone who discussed Action Media II board for AVI files vs. MPEG board for MPEG files. If I intend to create a digital library of medical images (ultrasound, X-ray, pathologic specimens, etc.), is one choice obviously better than the other? Mention was made that AVI files are less expensive to capture and edit – why is that?< My guess'd be that it's because MPEG is, at this point, being mostly developed for desktop video (to be dumped out of your computer to a piece of tape) as opposed to .AVI, which is intended for multimedia (to end up on your computer). .AVI is, I think, less expensive to capture & edit because, for the most part, you're not capturing 640 x 480 pixel sized images at 30 fps. BTW, where do you intend to end up using this–on your computer, or on videotape? Anyone else got any ideas on this? Hope this helps, Tim Liebe