16:9 floods my Mac.... at DVinfo.net

Jim Cancil · September 19th, 2008, 10:19 AM

Thanks to Josh - I found ffmpegX ...and need to process a short piece of HD to put up on a listing for one of my products on Ebay. ..but when I process it 'native' (I hope that's correct..) ..it floods my screen because it is soooo large. It there a size around 900xsomething that would be better for the general public but still give an HD impression and larger than the 720x480? Thanks.

j i m

Greg Boston · September 19th, 2008, 11:22 AM

853x480 is 16:9, but that might be smaller than what you want. The next step would really be 1280x720.

-gb-

Jim Cancil · September 19th, 2008, 01:19 PM

Greg: ..thanks, but ffmpegX threw me an alert that the width needs to be divisible by 16 ..so I got 880 instead. It fits in my iMac browser a lot better.

This is perhaps the cheapest (in many respects) so-called HD cam on the market. A DXG 567V ..but cheapo/crapo cameras have their place if the needs are somewhat parallel... (I had to send this one back because something loose inside was getting recorded)

j i m

...this camera is in a simple Grip I make to hold the cam onto the review mirror. I was on my way to the beach .. it kicked out after 1.5min? (maybe batteries..)

http://wetstuff.com/movie/DXG_test.mov.ff.mp4

Josh Chesarek · September 19th, 2008, 01:27 PM

912*513

I wouldn't really recomend going much above 600ish for web video though but it obviously can be done :)

September 19th, 2008, 10:19 AM	#1
Jim Cancil Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Salisbury Maryland Posts: 161	16:9 floods my Mac.... Thanks to Josh - I found ffmpegX ...and need to process a short piece of HD to put up on a listing for one of my products on Ebay. ..but when I process it 'native' (I hope that's correct..) ..it floods my screen because it is soooo large. It there a size around 900xsomething that would be better for the general public but still give an HD impression and larger than the 720x480? Thanks. j i m

September 19th, 2008, 01:27 PM	#4
Josh Chesarek Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Winter Park, FL Posts: 978	912*513 I wouldn't really recomend going much above 600ish for web video though but it obviously can be done :) __________________ Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second

September 19th, 2008, 11:22 AM	#2
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	853x480 is 16:9, but that might be smaller than what you want. The next step would really be 1280x720. -gb-

September 19th, 2008, 01:19 PM	#3
Jim Cancil Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Salisbury Maryland Posts: 161	Greg: ..thanks, but ffmpegX threw me an alert that the width needs to be divisible by 16 ..so I got 880 instead. It fits in my iMac browser a lot better. This is perhaps the cheapest (in many respects) so-called HD cam on the market. A DXG 567V ..but cheapo/crapo cameras have their place if the needs are somewhat parallel... (I had to send this one back because something loose inside was getting recorded) j i m ...this camera is in a simple Grip I make to hold the cam onto the review mirror. I was on my way to the beach .. it kicked out after 1.5min? (maybe batteries..) http://wetstuff.com/movie/DXG_test.mov.ff.mp4