[Linux] Screencasting and pixellation

Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:13:09 -0800 (PST)

--0-19673504-1169503989=:28452
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Obviously, my point was missed entirely.  So I'll post it up in talk@flux.org....

  Michael

Danny Rathjens <dannyr@wirespring.com> wrote:
 Most film is in a 1920x1080p24 format. Very little online research
can tell you a lot about this subject.
As for your idea to screengrab scripted images... there is no point.
You are just adding an extra layer. A movie *is* a series of images.
You can directly convert a series of images into a movie without
any screen grabs or "screencasting" involved. e.g. with mencoder.
Nor do you have to render the images at the full 24 frames per second
speed to accomplish it. (e.g. how pixar does it)
Again, the barest minimum of research will show you these things
and a lot more.
Please stop posting to this list about non-linux topics.
You are welcome to subscribe to the talk@flux.org list.

Michael Beal wrote:
> I get the idea behind screencasting but a feature length film? The 
> practicality of making a feature length film via screencasting is 
> great. Use Blender or Gimp to make some beautiful pictures, script the 
> playback of the pictures in full screen to produce motion and do a 
> screengrab to build the video. Pipe it all through ffmpeg or 
> mjpegtools, mplex the soundtrack and "Viola!" we have a movie! Sounds 
> great!! However, I sort of see a flaw in this idea when it comes to the 
> Big Screen...
> 
> PC screens are stuck at 72 or 96 dpi, depending on system settings. 
> Even the best nVidia Quadro cards, like the one in my CAD station at 
> work, are bound by this limitation. Without using an ultra high end 
> video card set at it's absolute highest setting to minimize/eliminate 
> pixellation, how does one oversome the 72/96dpi limitatipn when 
> translating the digital output to celluloid? Certainly celluloid frame 
> size has a lot to do with the level of pixellation present when 
> converting from digital to "analog", if you will.
> 
> Furthermore, if dropped frames are an issue now at, say 1280 by 1024, 
> how much worse will that issue become when using the ultra high end 
> graphics card set at 3200 by 2400 to reduce pixellation?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the whole screencasting thing. 
> There's nothing better than levelling the field from my perspective. If 
> everyone in the world could become a DIGITAL film maker, how much better 
> would Hollywood's movies become? How many more genres of film would 
> exist? The "let's make a fast buck" film would become non-existent and 
> movies with substance would become the norm. I'm not sure, though, that 
> the average home computer can handle the on-the-fly image rendering 
> necessary to take a 19 inch, 1280 by 1024 image and make it 
> realistically viewable on the average theatre screen.
> 
> Michael
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar 
> 
> alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. < 
> http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49937/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Linux mailing list
Linux@flux.org
http://www.flux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux

---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
--0-19673504-1169503989=:28452
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<div>Obviously, my point was missed entirely.&nbsp; So I'll post it up in <A href="mailto:talk@flux.org">talk@flux.org</A>....</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Michael Danny Rathjens &lt;dannyr@wirespring.com&gt; wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Most film is in a 1920x1080p24 format. Very little online research can tell you a lot about this subject. As for your idea to screengrab scripted images... there is no point. You are just adding an extra layer. A movie *is* a series of images. You can directly convert a series of images into a movie without any screen grabs or "screencasting" involved. e.g. with mencoder. Nor do you have to render the images at the full 24 frames per second speed to accomplish it. (e.g. how pixar does it) Again, the barest minimum of research will show you these things and a lot more. Please stop posting to this list
 about non-linux topics. You are welcome to subscribe to the talk@flux.org list. Michael Beal wrote: &gt; I get the idea behind screencasting but a feature length film? The &gt; practicality of making a feature length film via screencasting is &gt; great. Use Blender or Gimp to make some beautiful pictures, script the &gt; playback of the pictures in full screen to produce motion and do a &gt; screengrab to build the video. Pipe it all through ffmpeg or &gt; mjpegtools, mplex the soundtrack and "Viola!" we have a movie! Sounds &gt; great!! However, I sort of see a flaw in this idea when it comes to the &gt; Big Screen... &gt; &gt; PC screens are stuck at 72 or 96 dpi, depending on system settings. &gt; Even the best nVidia Quadro cards, like the one in my CAD station at &gt; work, are bound by this limitation. Without using an ultra high end &gt; video card set at it's absolute highest setting to minimize/eliminate
 &gt; pixellation, how does one oversome the 72/96dpi limitatipn when &gt; translating the digital output to celluloid? Certainly celluloid frame &gt; size has a lot to do with the level of pixellation present when &gt; converting from digital to "analog", if you will. &gt; &gt; Furthermore, if dropped frames are an issue now at, say 1280 by 1024, &gt; how much worse will that issue become when using the ultra high end &gt; graphics card set at 3200 by 2400 to reduce pixellation? &gt; &gt; Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the whole screencasting thing. &gt; There's nothing better than levelling the field from my perspective. If &gt; everyone in the world could become a DIGITAL film maker, how much better &gt; would Hollywood's movies become? How many more genres of film would &gt; exist? The "let's make a fast buck" film would become non-existent and &gt; movies with substance would become the norm. I'm not
 sure, though, that &gt; the average home computer can handle the on-the-fly image rendering &gt; necessary to take a 19 inch, 1280 by 1024 image and make it &gt; realistically viewable on the average theatre screen. &gt; &gt; Michael &gt; &gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &gt; Never miss an email again! &gt; Yahoo! Toolbar &gt; <HTTP: evt="49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/" us.rd.yahoo.com> &gt; alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. &lt; &gt; http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49937/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________ Linux mailing list Linux@flux.org http://www.flux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux </BLOCKQUOTE> &#32;

<hr size=1>Now that's room service! <a href="http://travel.yahoo.com/hotelsearchpage;_ylc=X3oDMTFtaTIzNXVjBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BF9zAzI3MTk0ODEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA21haWx0YWdsaW5lBHNsawNxMS0wNw--
">Choose from over 150,000 hotels <br>in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel</a> to find your fit.
--0-19673504-1169503989=:28452--