Im just curious how everyone rates the output quality and caputre of the videos. I know that we have the small peices of guide text however, I try to use a method which fits the videos more, i dont know if i am right or not with the way I have been doing this. I have noticed that some reviews are a little harsh on really quite well made videos because of this respect e.g. the captured source may a look slightly pixely.
My personal way of looking at it is by comparing the various formats and relative qualaties, these are the ratings that i tend to apply:
- (1) VIVO files (OMG They were bad quality, seriousley small and the very disjointed)
(4) Low Quality RM files. I generaly apply this rating to encodes which have a small diaplay resolution and also look quite pixelated or if the source used has some major falws (If anyone has seen the rm encodes of dbz, youll know what i mean)
(7) My personal average which is around mid quality avi. alot of amvs seem to fit in here
(10) DVD quality (or near enough)
I think that the scale does tend to vary from video to video because you also have to take into account other factors, for example my PC has problems with adobes export feature meaning that i can not encode too highly, also, some of the footage I use is downloaded because I have no other means of aquiring the source. I will be using DVD captures for my next amv (if it goes as planned) so I will try to see if this has any impact on the video quality.
Anyways, just wondering what you guys think about this, is this an ok system to use in additon to that which we are given or have my reviews not been accurate as a result of this?[/list]
