EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/cgplwlist/cgplw02751-03000.txt/[e-mail]_Thu Feb 23 23:05:00 PST 1995.msg

Text File | 1995-03-01 | 4KB | 72 lines

Article: 2850 of comp.graphics.packages.lightwave
Xref: netcom.com comp.graphics.packages.lightwave:2850
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.packages.lightwave
Path: netcom.com!csus.edu!csulb.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.rcinet.com!dmapub!news
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Flyer vs. PAR?
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.09
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (C-News file owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 199.18.212.235
Organization: Dayton Microcomputer Association; Dayton OH
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <3i3dae$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 04:24:45 GMT
Lines: 54

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Walter J. Turberville (III)) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Crookshank) writes:
>>From: [e-mail] (John Crookshank)
>>Subject: Re: Flyer vs. PAR?
>>Date: 17 Feb 95 23:11:24 CST
>
>>John-Mark Austin <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>>Has anyone actually compared PAR's output to Flyer's?  I would think
>>>PAR's component output would weigh in against the regular Toaster output.
>>> What about compression artifacts?
>
>>I've re-rendered the same animations to our Flyer that we originally rendered
>>(and still have) on the PAR. There is a VERY noticeable increase in quality
>>coming from the Flyer. No artifacts, no JPEG blocks, no little squigglies


>definitely reveal the artifacting.  If the Flyer eliminates jaggies, then that
>is great (and I have little doubt from the various reports that it does).  But
>since video almost always ends up on tape, I wonder how much better the
>Flyer's image really is.  Of course, I suppose it probably depends on the
>image.  Somebody correct me if I am off base, or am I just overly fixated on
>the limitations of composite output.
>
>We used an Amiga Arexx script with a PAR and the Toaster to lay down our demo
>tape recently, and I was bummed at having to use composite inputs/outputs.  I
>think it brought the image quality down a notch.  From what I hear, the Flyer
>uses the Toaster's outputs hence my concern.  Maybe it doesn't suffer as much
>if it inputs the video as D2 and not as analog composite?
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Walter (Jay) Turberville   |[e-mail]  [e-mail]
>Phoenix, AZ                |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
>............................|ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber

My studio is currently running with both the PAR and the Flyer.
    My opinion... by far the Flyer's output is greatly better.  This may seem
nonsensical, but it seems that is composite output beats the PAR's Y/C output.
    As for the statement about the jaggies, unless you used wrong wording,
jaggies are not created, nor cured by signal or compression output, that is
something to be dealt with via antialaising.
    Artifact though, are an issue.  The PAR has served excellently for the
past 1 1/2 yrs for all the video and commercial productions that we have done.
But there still is quite noticeable compression artifacts in the frames.  My
first test to compare the two systems had marvelous results.  On a small space
animation, the PAR produced quite a bit of "splotches" in the solid black back-
ground.  The same rendering put onto the Flyer had absolutely none that we could
find.
    But the draw back to the Flyer is that it is 'yet' no where as near as
easy to work with as the PAR.  The ability to split/copy/paste anims/clips and
frames doesn't seem possible in the current beta version of the Flyer.  It will
be a God send if those features are added to it in the release version.
                        Bradley