|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 12th, 2007, 09:43 PM
|
#16 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle River, AK
Posts: 4,100
|
David, just to clarify...is the audio glitch fix already in the Aspect v4.3.0 (Build 75), or is there a Build 76 that folks should look for? And I guess a clarification on build numbers will be appreciated by the Prospect users, too. Thanks!
__________________
Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress! |
|
|
|
February 12th, 2007, 09:52 PM
|
#17 |
|
CTO, CineForm Inc.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California
Posts: 8,095
|
Yes build 76 for Aspect HD and build 111 for Prospect HD were uploaded a couple of hours ago. I used the old links, so you can use the link in your trial/upgrade email.
Aspect HD is now 4.3.1 build 76 Prospect HD is now 2.3.1 build 111 and Connect HD was updated for the improved Decklink Intensity support is now 3.4.1. build 36
__________________
David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 02:50 PM
|
#18 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 568
|
David, I never seem to get notes from CF about new prospect releases.
Anyway to get my added? So, I just downloaded the trial and it is version 110, not 111. Thanks Dave |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 03:32 PM
|
#19 |
|
CTO, CineForm Inc.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California
Posts: 8,095
|
We don't do that for anything the major releases now that you can download the PHD updates directly. Just check the website occasionally. Maybe we should have an RSS feed for CineForm news and updates.
If you ZIP that file you will find Build 111 within it.
__________________
David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 04:05 PM
|
#20 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 568
|
Okay, that worked but never would have guess this in a million years.
The zip file says 110. The folder made from the zip says 110. Only when I looked into the folder did I see 111. Thanks Dave |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 04:12 PM
|
#21 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Solana Beach, CA
Posts: 853
|
DN did this because I normally do the web updates, including the download link pointer. So that he didn't have to change the HTML email with the download link he simply changed the payload (Build 111) inside the existing pointer.
I have a different laptop with me on the road or I'd update it - sorry about being inconsistent.... |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 04:16 PM
|
#22 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 568
|
Again, no problem. Sorry I had to ask, but as I said, never would have guessed. :o)
Dave |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 08:40 PM
|
#23 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Hollywood, Atlanta
Posts: 437
|
How does Cineforms codec compare to Blackmagic's Motion-JPEG codec? This is what i want to know.
My asumption is that Motion-JPEG looks better. but cineform HD codec plays more streams and better RT editing performance. Am i right?
__________________
Tyson X |
|
|
|
|
February 13th, 2007, 10:25 PM
|
#24 |
|
CTO, CineForm Inc.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California
Posts: 8,095
|
Tyson,
No, CineForm is higher quality also. MJPEG is a old format and is DCT based, it is not optimized for bit efficiency or encode/decode performance. CineForm is wavelet based, so for any given bit-rate we will outperform a MPEG solution for quality and easy of use.
__________________
David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
