Cathy Ralph
Forum Replies Created
-
Just my 2 cents here – Unless you are really familiar with building newer PC’s – I’d go with a Dell or Boxx computer built to order. I say this only because I built one last year and it was a nightmare. The new Intel processors are hotter and a lot more complicated and sticky – I mean this literally, heat sink goo – and my experience was it never cooled right or ran right. I ended-up buying a Dell XPS Dual Core with 4 Gigs of RAM and I’ve been very happy with it, and it cost about $2K less than the one I built! Also – ditto what’s been said about Vista – stick with XP. Good Luck!
-Cathy -
beenyweenies! That’s too funny – I had BeaneeWeenees for lunch today!
Thanks so much for the info! That’s just what I’ve been trying to find out – was there a quality difference. I’m working on an animation that will go onto a DVD for circulation to festivals. So I see no reason why I shouldn’t work in the smaller HD size of 1280 x 720 – because as you say, it will have to be scaled-down anyways.
Thanks Again!
-Cathy -
Thanks so much for your comment. Actually – I’m not shooting anything – I’m creating an animation based on fine art pen and ink drawings and similar art created in the computer. I chose HD thinking it would give me the best quality representation of the work. But at the time I had no idea how huge these files would get or how much RAM AE would need to run them.
-
HURRAY!! I discovered what the problem was!
I was rendering out at no compression. So I systematically applied one codec after another and test rendered until I found the one that works! MPEG4! What I find interesting is that depending on what codec I chose for the output module, I’d get different results – like Cinepac would render smooth motion on foreground items but not background items – weird, huh?
Thanks to all who scratched their heads on this one!
-Cathy -
No – I’m going to try that experiment today. I’m rendering out with no compression, so I don’t think it’s a codec problem. I’ve always worked at 720 x 480 and never seen this problem before. That’s why I suspect it may be the file size. Thanks!
-
Thank you so much! I’ve been trying to find an answer to this all day! Now I finally “get it” ! 🙂 Thanks again.
-
Yes! I get it! Thank you so much for breaking this down for me. I’ve been posting this question in a zillion forums today and coming-up with nothing! Finally – an answer! 🙂 Thanks again.
-
Thanks – yes, adding DPI or PPI to the mix makes it even more confusing to me. I’ve been searching the net and see all different kinds of resolutions talked about. I just wish there were some definitive rule like “1920 x 1080, 300 dpi” that I could apply here. But thanks for your comment about the scanner – I’d forgotten that i could adjust for that.