Hi Carsten, >> going to give you miserable results. Doing the same to a >> high resolution picture is only going to make things worse. > I disagree, Reinhard. > IMHO, Gr?goire's question above is perfectly valid. Oh, I wasn't questioning the validility of Gr?goire's question. It's just that >I< wouldn't give up quality for size. But then I watch my movies on a 315 cm diagonal ;o)) and MPEG2 artifacts are already bugging me. >Assuming that the thing must fit on one DVD, it has to be > reduced in size Sure, I understand that, but then I would span it across two DVDs. At the moment, we aren't talking about hundereds of movies in HDTV quality. Europe still has a LOOOONG way to go before that becomes reality (if it ever does). >and AFAIK, MPEG4 would be the way that loses the least > amount of quality when doing that. Sure, MPEG4 is the least lossy compression, but a compression is still a compression and it simply has to compromize quality. The problem is that video, unlike a text file, cannot be compressed to any reasonable size w/o losing one way or the other. Regards, Reinhard -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 25.03.2005
