<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Fly Through Output in Visualization</title>
    <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106162#M21758</link>
    <description>a sequence of stills is best. Then you decide how best to compress and assemble them. QT seems superior but what do I know?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Having stills lets you apply Photoshop filters and saved actions for post processing - perhaps even to edit problem frames.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
And since they aren't compressed, the look okay on their own in case you need a still shot.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:44:15 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Dwight</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2005-06-16T20:44:15Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Fly Through Output</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106161#M21757</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV class="actalk-migrated-content"&gt;&lt;T&gt;What's the best output format for Fly throughs....&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Is it Quicktime?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Windows Video file???&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
?????&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Thanks&lt;/T&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2023 12:13:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106161#M21757</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-05-11T12:13:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Fly Through Output</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106162#M21758</link>
      <description>a sequence of stills is best. Then you decide how best to compress and assemble them. QT seems superior but what do I know?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Having stills lets you apply Photoshop filters and saved actions for post processing - perhaps even to edit problem frames.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
And since they aren't compressed, the look okay on their own in case you need a still shot.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:44:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106162#M21758</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dwight</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-06-16T20:44:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Fly Through Output</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106163#M21759</link>
      <description>Like Dwight says: render to stills, convert to movie afterwards, depending on output. Quicktime is a good cross-platform choice, but Windows Video is fine on PC's. Compression is required to have small files for websites but it destroys image detail and plain smooth surfaces.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I have XP problems with Quicktime though, since I almost never get a smooth playback (even when running a P4 3.2 GHz !). Maybe it's my configuration, but I always get stuttering playback in the Quicktime player.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:55:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Visualization/Fly-Through-Output/m-p/106163#M21759</guid>
      <dc:creator>stefan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-06-20T06:55:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

