Thanks, got it now.

DJ

I figured out how to make better download page so I will work on it.

how is about something like this.

http://homepage.mac.com/kakuito/blogwavestudio/LH20040611105919/LHA20040726115115/index.html

Only the top item is fully explained right now. Also, few of the information is not quite accurate. I will work on the rest later today.

Ok I have downloaded the files, however the file extensions are such that the media player will not recognise it. How do I play these files?

DJ

<<<-- Originally posted by David Jonas : Ok I have downloaded the files, however the file extensions are such that the media player will not recognise it. How do I play these files?

DJ -->>>

You would get the best result if you can burn them as DVD.
Otherwise, how about QuickTime player?

The file extensions I am getting is "m2v-binhex". Is that what I should get?

DJ

<<<-- Originally posted by David Jonas : The file extensions I am getting is "m2v-binhex". Is that what I should get?

DJ -->>>

maybe you have to unstuff first?

David, you have to unzip the file. Then you get an m2v file. I use PowerDVD to view m2v files.

Thanx to Kaku

Ok got it now. Not familiar with those mac type files. had to download stuffit (first time I heard of it). Will burn to DVD and report back.

DJ

<<<-- Originally posted by Ahmad Khalil : David, you have to unzip the file. Then you get an m2v file. I use PowerDVD to view m2v files. -->>>

Definitely unzip it first. WinZip handles bin-hex zips fine. I then extracted the file, and then I simply renamed the .m2v extension to .mpg. It played just fine for me on Windows Media Player.

already unzipped and playing. Just want to see it on NTSC monitor.

DJ

<<<-- Originally posted by Andreas Winkler : Thanks for the photos Kaku! But as I can see from the EXIF data you took the photos at 2288x1728 resolution and then downscaled them. Is it possible to see an original unchanged still shot file?
I'm particular interested in different resolution modes to compare. (e.g. 1280x960, 2288x1728...)

Of course some frame grabs out of a video or a short movie sequence would be also interesting, but I guess it's not really meaningful compressed here on the internet. -->>>

Andrea,

I posted some photos on my blog for you. Take a look.

<<<-- Originally posted by Kaku Ito : <<<-- Originally posted by Andreas Winkler : Thanks for the photos Kaku! But as I can see from the EXIF data you took the photos at 2288x1728 resolution and then downscaled them. Is it possible to see an original unchanged still shot file?
I'm particular interested in different resolution modes to compare. (e.g. 1280x960, 2288x1728...)

Of course some frame grabs out of a video or a short movie sequence would be also interesting, but I guess it's not really meaningful compressed here on the internet. -->>>

Andrea,

I posted some photos on my blog for you. Take a look. -->>>
I just checked the photos and it seems that photo taken by GS100 has better sharpness and color.

Thanks a lot for posting the photos, Kaku!!!

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Leung :
I just checked the photos and it seems that photo taken by GS100 has better sharpness and color. -->>>

As I can see from the EXIF data the white balance was set manually on the GS100, while the GS400 was set on automatic, right?! Maybe that's what causes the different colors!?

For the sharpness... hmm, I guess both cam's were not mounted on a tripod. So maybe Kaku was just lucky to get a clearer shot with the GS100!?

In general I think both cams are not comparable to real still cams and the photos still look like video somehow.

No problem Andreas,

I did not even check how I shot these photos, because I was in rush. Right after this, we had to take off to do shooting at the park before the sunset. I will do a better one next time.

As someone else mentioned, GS400 does not seems to have overly edge enhancement. It looks more natural. I did not set them on tripod because I thought the MEGA-OIS thing gives me a lot more steady shot, but I guess not (lol).

GS400 or other interlace CCD would never be comparable to digital still camera because there would be slight time difference to get full pixels from two groups of fiels, I am correct? So I would figure cams with progressive CCD would have better result. I have Nikon Coolpix 5000 and it is small enough, I can't get away from shooting stills when I know Coolpix can take photos at this quality.