08-21-2006, 11:51 PM
interesting insight. I work with mostly uncompressed .avi files. After all is done, I compress for the final version. maybe that is it. Mine are uncompressed.
Rotate avi video
|
08-21-2006, 11:51 PM
interesting insight. I work with mostly uncompressed .avi files. After all is done, I compress for the final version. maybe that is it. Mine are uncompressed.
08-22-2006, 12:53 AM
I didn't know there was such a thing as an uncompressed .avi
FWIW, my avi's (from my Fuji digicam) are compressed with "Motion JPEG OpenDML" Oh well, at least I know that the quality and frames are still there (even tho' they're not all playing on my 733 MHz Mac).
08-22-2006, 01:04 AM
take 1000 tiffs, and import as an image sequence to make a "slide show" You now have an uncompressed RAW file. Save as an .avi. you now have an uncompressed .avi file.
Also, every digital high speed video camera made in the last decade will generate an uncompressed .avi file. Most people just refer to it as a RAW file, as opposed to an uncompressed .avi. You can have an uncompressed .mov file as well. The file format is just a wrapper around the data.
08-22-2006, 01:23 AM
Yeah I knew that about the wrapper (different codecs etc), I've just never run across an uncompressed avi. I just read that avi is a Microsoft format. Surprising that Fuji recommends downloading the latest version of QuickTime if you have problems playing their avi's (even for Windows). ;-)
So Racer, you do high speed photography? Have any cool pictures/movies to look at? Soooper Slo Mo?
08-22-2006, 01:28 AM
Don't just save, even as a self-contained movie. It will still contain the original video data.
Instead, export the rotated file. It re-encodes the video.
08-22-2006, 01:35 PM
I've done some experimenting with exporting too, but the file is either lower quality (another compression step), much larger in size and/or plays at 15 fps or lower. It's also time-consuming.
I was hoping for a utility that just rotated the avi 90 degrees without re-encoding. In theory this is possible because the pixels are not changing other than being transformed by a simple algorithm. Then it would be fast, with no quality loss and the same size file. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|