Re: [magick-developers] Problems with convert

Thanks to all your help!!!

I finally was able to create a very sexy video using mplayer

	mencoder "mf://data/p*.png" -mf fps=40 -o particle.avi -ovc lavc

The main problem was that I had to compile and install a bunch of  
libraries (starting from libpng) on our (SuSE!!!) Linux Cluster  
(which is no fun compared to a Debian based Linux system).  I don't  
know how people could work on this machine before.

I now have a very nice workflow: Running the simulation, let gnuplot  
create png images instead of gif, create the movie with mencoder ...

I will also try to realize the idea of Glenn to use a MNG:

> Mpeg might not be too good for images from a numerical simulation.  If
> it contains lines and sharp boundaries, the lossy compression of Mpeg
> will not look good and will not compress well.
>
> I would use MNG, and make a large tiled image, like a microfiche
> film, containing all 6000
> images in one PNG file, with MOVE and CLIP instructions to display
> each tile in sequence.

While I don't know much about image processing (as you already have  
noticed) I know that jpeg dumps high frequencies due to the cosine  
transform.  So that's why gif and png I better for my plots.  That's  
the reason I wanted to avoid mpeg at all.  However, I am surprised  
that the smearing effects are not as bad as I expected, you can see  
them in the particle video only if you zoom in (so good enough for a  
presentation using an old beamer):

	http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/~lehn/particle.avi
	http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/~lehn/temperature.avi

I will continue to investigate on this further.  Once I succeeded I  
will write and publish some instructions for other dummies like me ;-)

Thanks again to all of you,

Michael


Am 03.11.2007 um 00:06 schrieb d.henman:

>
> I should think that newer mpeg-4 encoded series, would save the  
> most amount of space, if there isn't much change between frames.
>
> It should also be good enough for numerical lines.  Does mpeg-4  
> have a level of compression or option...
>
> regards
>
>>>
>>> I would suggest another image format. How about generating a movie
>>> file, such as mpeg? You'll save a *huge* amount of space. Plus,  
>>> if you
>>> encode correctly, you'll be able to seek backwards and forwards in
>>> your file.
>>
>> Mpeg might not be too good for images from a numerical  
>> simulation.  If
>> it contains lines and sharp boundaries, the lossy compression of Mpeg
>> will not look good and will not compress well.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Magick-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-developers