D-76

[rufus_blackwell]

Hi

Yeah those are the settings I use when exporting videos for the web using quicktime. So they are all found in the export menu of the software. However you have to have qt pro to export and that costs a little bit. It probably seems more confusing than it is if you can not see that menu but those are each of the settings in the export menu.

Another good and probably the most commonly used codec is "sorenson 3"

You can set the same settings as for h.264 for the most part.

sorenson is more pc friendly
h.264 is more mac friendly

but like I said the aesthetics of h.264 are superior.

[mr_x]

Hi

Yeah those are the settings I use when exporting videos for the web using quicktime. So they are all found in the export menu of the software. However you have to have qt pro to export and that costs a little bit. It probably seems more confusing than it is if you can not see that menu but those are each of the settings in the export menu.

Another good and probably the most commonly used codec is "sorenson 3"

You can set the same settings as for h.264 for the most part.

sorenson is more pc friendly
h.264 is more mac friendly

but like I said the aesthetics of h.264 are superior.

hi Rufus

i guess this is all relevant to the forum - so will continue the discussion: which is fascinating

QT7 - for Windows - is relatively cheap, but the reviews are fairly damning. Sorenson 5 is comparatively expensive, but 'looks the business': it might be something i need to consider, when i finish editing my next 'big' ciné project (approx 30 mins), because i'd like to show it online

for now - youtube have a 100MB upload cap, which is pretty reasonable (i thought it was 30MB), and the MPEG quality of the latest (above/previous post) piece of film i uploaded pleases me, compared to my early results

thanks for sharing this news about Sorenson - i had no idea this product even existed? How does it compare to Roxio Buzz, please?

thanks

Ric

[mr_x]

Sorenson 3 seems to bounce back to Quick Time, again - and i am wary of QT, which once 'took over' all the graphics files on my (original) windows pc

http://www.onevideo.co.uk/sorenson-vide ... p-804.html

[rufus_blackwell]

Hi Yeah the sorenson program is probably the business.

However the feeling I get from these two is that sorenson is better for getting videos really small h.264 is best for bigger but better quality vids.

However sorenson is good at higher quality settings too.

Quicktime pro is probably cheaper than the sorenson program. And you can create sorenson QTs from that.

R

[mr_x]

Sorenson 5 looks brilliant - but Roxio Buzz seems to equally offer a range of MPEG programs for web file creation?

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:FJ ... k&ie=UTF-8

what is to choose between them, please?

R

[rufus_blackwell]

Don't know the exact details but both are probably good.

[mr_x]

i need to do a 'control' - upload 1 video in Pinnacle and Buzz and compare file sizes (MPEG) and quality, if the software will allow me to do this ~ Roxio has a tendecy to auto-upload to the server, so you never catch sight of the file size or type?

[agingeri]

What about cross-processing 7265 as negative?

I've cross-processed 7266 a couple times and really liked the increased tonal range. I don't have a motion picture processing tank so I just wadded the film up and stuck it in a 35mm daylight tank. I shot it at its rated ISO of 200, and gave it double the processing time and agitation recommended for Tri-X 400 negative 35mm film (yes, I know they're different emulsions but this was all guesswork and it gave me a starting point). Used D-76 1:1. Also doubled the stop and fix times to be on the safe side. Part of this was because I had read that there was a loss of speed in 7266 when cross-processed, but I was also concerned about adequate chemical coverage since the film wasn't on a spiral. These times gave me a good, sharp, if slightly dense negative: http://www.exgfilms.com/videos/7266-hand-1.mov

I just shot a roll of 7265 and I'm planning on processing it the same way, but Kodak's data sheet is giving me doubts. I exposed the film as ISO 100, but Kodak's data sheet says that for cross-processing, 7265 should be exposed as ISO 25. Does that mean I should aim for somewhere around 2.25x the recommended processing time? Should I increase the time even more because I'm not using a spiral? richard p.t. implied that pushing 7265 may be a more difficult affair than pushing 7266. Is this true in cross-processing as well, or just when pushing reversal?

[mr_x]

why not divide the film and process at different times then compare the results - i am thinking of doing something similar myself with Tri-X 7266 ;)

R

[mr_x]

...i'm going to develop the second roll of Retro-x in D-76, without solarising it. if it comes out opaque again, at least i will know that i don't know what is going on

came out ok - what i did wrong with solarising was to flash the film before it had been partially developed, so i instantly fogged the lot

if i develop Tri-X in D-76 so i end up with a negative image, can i solarise the development half way through, as with 64T in E6?

thanks

Ric

[mr_x]

there's a pdf here which basically suggests b/w solarisation is almost the same as E6 - exposing the film to light during development?

http://www.bw-photography.net/pdfs/Film ... zation.pdf

find this a bit confusing because you can i know turn reversal film positive by exposing it to a strong light, but that involves bleaching it i think, whereas developing b/w as negative film leaves out the bleaching stage

but what if you want half negative and half positive b/w film - ie. solarised?

thanks

R

[mr_x]

... on the subject - is "1+1" the same as "1:1" when mixing up chemicals please?

thanks

R