max.Dateigrösse to AVI

wrote in news post
news: 43df8c88 $ 0 $ 9008 $ 9b622d9e@news.freenet.de ...
> Hello friends, knows of a Council?
>
> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each
> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
> My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
> WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 ver 4.7 - Is there any
> This board an opportunity to record directly via
> Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
>
> Thanks for clarification!
>
>
> Wolfgang
>

Video Hello Friends, Thank you s.alle to me attentively on FAT32
have done, that was the reason.
Who is interested: My Calculator 2.2 GHz with XP SP2 and has HomeEd
While HauptFP C: \ with NTFS, the storage of the *. AVI was
but on the FP D: \ with FAT32, which I made an old calculator
did. Meanwhile, I know that FAT32 files to 2 ^ 32
corresponding to approximately 4,294 GB permits. Although this is still about 100 MB more
as my (exactly equal) recorded 4 AVI files, but where
the 100 MB of stuck, I do not know. An experiment on the C: \ (with NTFS)
had a (readable) AVI with 28.6 GB and> 4 hours of recording time.
Detailed information on this topic, synonymous procedures for
Conversion of FAT to NTFS, I found incidentally during www.schieb.de

Wolfgang










Antwort von Heiko Nocon:

Josef Moellers wrote:

> This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
> a RIFF-file, similar to WAV file and this has only
> 32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always at 4GB
> layer in the chamber.

Nonsense.

You've obviously never of heard OpenDML AVIs and synonymous
nothing of the fact that such a specification since ten
Years.

A program, which today is still not supported, is easy
in the trash.





Antwort von Stefan Koschke:

Benjamin reason wrote:
> On 31.January 2006, 19:21 Koschke Stefan wrote:
>
>
>> not necessarily, it was already on my "old" AMD 1400mit
>> an NVidia VIVO graphics card without any restrictions!
>
>
> In which resolution?
> I have here and with an Athlon XP 1800versucht in various
> Formats in real-time record. Even with the processor was the only
> In very low resolutions possible.
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
Hi Benjamin,

all DVD Resolutions, of "high quality" to "long play", each PAL.
And no noticeable CPU usage except for the blades to
Plate and went as the HD-Led synonymous only briefly on.

Ciao
Stefan




Antwort von Stefan Koschke:

Thieler Wolfgang wrote:

> "Wolfgang Thieler" wrote in news post
> News: 43df8c88 $ 0 $ 9008 $ 9b622d9e@news.freenet.de ...
>
>> Hello friends, knows of a Council?
>>
>> I just fall to that recorded TV exactly when each
>> 4,194,223 bytes to store in a *. AVI file is terminated.
>> My TV board is a Hauppauge WinTV PCI with 848-chip with the
>> WDM drivers and the program WinTV32/2000 Vers 4.7 - Is there any
>> this board an opportunity to record directly via
>> Software decoder directly in a *. mpg file to save?
>>
>> Thanks for clarification!
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>
>
> Hello Friends video, thank you s.alle to me attentively on FAT32
> Have done, that was the reason.
> Who is interested: My Calculator 2.2 GHz with XP SP2 and has HomeEd
> While HauptFP C: \ with NTFS, the storage of the *. AVI was
> But on the FP D: \ with FAT32, which I made an old calculator
> Did. Meanwhile, I know that FAT32 files to 2 ^ 32
> Corresponding to approximately 4,294 GB permits. Although this is still about 100 MB more
> My (exactly equal) recorded 4 AVI files, but where
> The 100 MB of stuck, I do not know. An experiment on the C: \ (with NTFS)
> Let a (readable) AVI with 28.6 GB and> 4 hours of recording time.
> Detailed information on this topic, synonymous procedures for
> Conversion of FAT to NTFS, I found incidentally during www.schieb.de
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
Hello Wolfgang,

Your 100 MB are missing s.Deiner false conversion, a n.hat
1024 bytes and MB has a 1024 kB.
But there are always programs (and the manufacturer's specifications so ;-)
expect that a larger value rauskommt.

Ciao
Stefan




Antwort von Benjamin Grund:

On 01.February 2006, 17:57 Koschke Stefan wrote:

> All DVD Resolutions, of "high quality" to "long play", each PAL.
> And no noticeable CPU usage except for the blades to
> Plate and went as the HD-Led synonymous only briefly on.

If the card happens to have a hardware encoder in it?
Full DVD Resolutionbei MPEG2 is with such a lame otherwise Processor
actually not possible.

Gruß,
Benjamin




Antwort von Benjamin Grund:

On 01.February 2006, 17:57 Koschke Stefan wrote:

> All DVD Resolutions, of "high quality" to "long play", each PAL.
> And no noticeable CPU usage except for the blades to
> Plate and went as the HD-Led synonymous only briefly on.

Hab bischen now look into the cards seem to actually
a hardware encoder on it to have. Then is it clear that so synonymous
on computers such as an old Athlon 1400eine recording with high
Resolutionund MPEG2 possible.
It was but of a normal TV card with BT848 chipset question
and thus would be a real-time recording in MPEG2 format with a so -
Processor lame never be possible, as I said this is not even with
my Athlon XP 1800.

Gruß,
Benjamin




Antwort von Andre Beck:

Stefan Koschke writes:
>
> Your missing 100 MB hang s.Deiner false conversion, a kB
> Has 1024 bytes and MB has a 1024 kB.

No.. The SI prefixes do not change just so, just because a
Some scientists find the match. For the IEC has been 8 years
alternative prefixes (kiB, MiB, etc) that will actually behave
as in computer science sometimes seems to fit. Unfortunately, the
old Mem is extremely sedentary and incomprehensible from the grounds of
with infected vehemently defended him, and partly abstruse Work
Arounds invented (large K [actually stands for Kelvin and
as synonymous only with the k folds, the big M's and m's are synonymous
already], the distinction between MB and MB [a curiosity from the
Heise-press, where there is now apparently some editors bescheid
know]) and is always synonymous polemics against leading manufacturer plate, which
the only ties to cheat.

> But there are always programs (and the manufacturer's specifications so ;-)
> Expect that a larger value rauskommt.

The account may be simply incorrect. A megabyte is now time a
Million bytes, which is synonymous not do otherwise - what do you mean where the
entire telecommunications industry would end if the engineer does not
more transparent of "1 MByte / s" could conclude "Aha, this is a
Byte / s "? Want you about the consequences of such nonsense inform
(eg, the legendary "1.44MB" floppy or all broken software,
the opinion is 1Mbit / s would 1048576Bit / s [particularly widespread in
Video environment]) and

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

consult.

Who incorrectly displays the Windows Explorer.

--
The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"

-> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck ABP-RIPE Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <--




Antwort von Christian Schroeder:

Andre Beck wrote:
> Stefan Koschke writes:
>> Your missing 100 MB hang s.Deiner false conversion, a kB
>> Has 1024 bytes and MB has a 1024 kB.
>
> No.. The SI prefixes do not change just so, just because a
> Some scientists find the match. For the IEC has been 8 years
> Alternative prefixes (kiB, MiB, etc) that will actually behave
> Like it in the computer science sometimes seems to fit. Unfortunately, the
> Old Mem is extremely sedentary and incomprehensible from the grounds of
> With infected vehemently defended him, but partly abstruse Work
> Around invented (large K [actually stands for Kelvin and
> So synonymous only with the k folds, the big M's and m's are synonymous
> Already], the distinction between MB and MB [a curiosity from the
> Heise-press, where there is now apparently some editors bescheid
> Know]) and is always synonymous polemic against the disk manufacturer is leading the
> The only ties to cheat.
>
>> But there are always programs (and the manufacturer's specifications so ;-)
>> Expect that a larger value rauskommt.
>
> The account may be simply incorrect. A megabyte is now time a
> Million bytes, which is synonymous not do otherwise - what do you mean where the
> Entire telecommunications industry would end if the engineer does not
> More transparent of "1 MByte / s" could conclude "Aha, this is a
> Byte / s? "I want you on the consequences of such nonsense inform
> (Eg, the legendary "1.44MB" floppy or all broken software,
> Think is the 1Mbit / s would 1048576Bit / s [particularly widespread in
> Video environment]) and

This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
Scientists think this because once again what made creative
be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes. Why? Because the digital computer with
2er Potencies calculated (voltage level to Hi or Low, the more familiar
not) must be all in powers of 2 letters.
And, 2 to 10 is nunmal 1024, obs suits you or not. And if
HDD manufacturers a 60 GB disk sale, then the only
Has 54GB (grad is now roughly estimated), then it is only a
Marketing gag.
And with SI prefixes, the times simply nothing to do ...

--
Gruß Chris
We must Sisyphus happy as people imagine!




Antwort von Helmut Hullen:

Hello, Christian,

Du (Christian.Schroeder) my test s.05.02.06:

>> No. The SI prefixes do not change just so, just because
>> A few computer scientists will find the match. For the IEC has been
>> 8 years alternative prefixes (kiB, MiB, etc) which then really
>> Behave as it is uncommon in computer science fits
>> Appears.

[...]

> This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
> The scientists think, because once again what made creative
> Should be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes.

No.. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th

Alternative:

1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us

Many greetings!
Helmut




Antwort von Alexander Noe':

Andre Stork wrote:

>> Josef Moellers wrote
>> This has nothing with FAT or NTFS to be done: an AVI file is, strictly speaking,
>> a RIFF-file, similar to WAV file and this has only
>> 32 bits for the size (bytes 4-7), so there is always at 4GB
>> layer in the chamber.
>
>
> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
> Resulted in at 2GB conclusion was (probably a rather INT UINT
> Taken)

That was not a bug.

> And in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
> Exactly, I do not know more).

1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...

>
> ... but since there are now but what of Ratiopharm .. Extended AVI? or so.
> Could not longer AVIs?

Yes, for almost 10 years

MfG
Alexander

Antwort von Andre Storch:


> Alexander Noe wrote
>> Andre Stork wrote:
>
>> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
>> Resulted in at 2GB Final was (probably a rather INT UINT
>> Taken)
>
> That was not a bug.
>
>> And in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
>> Exactly, I do not know more).
>
> 1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...

Aha, so that calmed me:)
I can only remember that it was in the
Context is always of 'faulty implementation'
or 'development errors from Microsoft' to
Speech was.

Regards
André





Antwort von Josef Moellers:

Andre Stork wrote:
>> Alexander Noe wrote
>>
>>> Andre Stork wrote:
>>
>>> And in addition, there was times 2 bugs in MS, during a Bug
>>> resulted in at 2GB Final was (probably an INT instead of UIN =
T
>>> taken)
>>
>> That was not a bug.
>>
>>
>>> and in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
>>> exactly, I do not know more).
>>
>> 1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...
>
>
>
> Aha, so that calmed me:)
> I can only remember that it was in the
> Always connection of 'faulty implementation'
> Or 'development errors from Microsoft' to
> Speech was.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature"

"On 1.1.2006, all known bugs have our products
System features has been declared. The Prices of the new products were =

Features as a result. "

--
Josef Möllers (penguin keeper at FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
- T. Pratchett





Antwort von Hansgeorg Falterer:

Helmut Hulle wrote:

>
>> This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
>> The scientists think, because once again what made creative
>> should be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
>
>
> No.. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
> The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
>
> Alternative
>
> 1 Mbyte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>

Through repetition you get off the fact that when
Bytes two calculation methods ", which has its origin in the
"Definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000 bytes) and
one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes). There is no
invade in the name of "1 KB memory" of a
1000 bytes of disk space must be held because of the binary
Logic and thus the necessary technique addressing only one
Potency of the base 2 is possible. The first possible number more than 1000
1024 The flat is to be introduced is 1 KB. For many, this
different basic reason according to which a benefit
or other basis. If you have an old contract with
certain Webhoster had known the "conversion" of the contract
warranted 1 GB to 1 GB (the former is calculated on the basis of 1024
the latter to 1000), because let's fix vanish almost 75 MB!
Such "basic problems" earlier, there was synonymous with other units:
Inch, foot, etc. was not inches, feet, etc. is still
The miles used quite differently:
English 1.5 km
Land about 1.6 km miles
nautical approximately 1.8 kilometers

So when you talk of 1 MB you have yet to know what
Basis we are talking, otherwise you will ev Übers shortchanged, a
"Religious war", who is syntactically right, since not much help.

Viele Gruesse Hansgeorg





Antwort von Helmut Hullen:

Hello, Hans Georg,

Du (fold) my test s.06.02.06:

>> Alternative:
>>
>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us

> It is by repetition to get away is not the fact that it
> Bytes at two "calculation methods", which originate in
> The "definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000
> Bytes) and one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes).

The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
subordinate bodies) are defined.

It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
Electrician.

1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us

Many greetings!
Helmut




Antwort von Christian Schroeder:

Helmut Hulle wrote:
> Hello, Hans Georg,
>
> You (butterflies) s.06.02.06 my test:
>
>>> Alternative:
>>>
>>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>
>> It is by repetition to get away is not the fact that it
>> Bytes at two "calculation methods", which originate in
>> The "definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000
>> Bytes) and one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes).
>
> The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
> Subordinate bodies) are defined.
>
> It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
> Electrician.
>
> 1 Mbyte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us

Again, the amount shall not have any theoretical
Units (which otherwise do like their services), which is
Stallions out desk, but the real, by the
Hardware-related.

--
Gruß Chris
We must Sisyphus happy as people imagine!




Antwort von Helmut Hullen:

Hello, Christian,

Du (Christian.Schroeder) my test s.06.02.06:

>> The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
>> Subordinate bodies) are defined.
>>
>> It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
>> Electricians.
>>
>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us

> Once again: The amount shall not have any theoretical
> Units (otherwise their services may do so), which is
> Desk stallions have invented, but the real, the
> By the hardware-related.

Simply nonsense. People Dich mal slightly with commercial law. And
Competition.

Many greetings!
Helmut




Antwort von Josef Moellers:

Helmut Hulle wrote:
> Hi, Christian,
>
> Du (Christian.Schroeder) my test s.06.02.06:
>
>
>>> The "practical" is nowhere legally (or through official
>>> delegated bodies) are defined.
>>>
>>> It only exists (yet) in the minds of some scientists and
>>> Electrician.
>>>
>>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>
>
>> Once again, the amount shall not have any theoretical
>> Units (otherwise their services may do so), which is
>> Desk stallions have invented, but the real, the
>> by the hardware-related.
>
>
> Simply nonsense. People Dich mal slightly with commercial law. Un =
d
> Competition.

And you with the normative force of facticity:
1. If there really is so against the trade and competition would be
Dealers would not 512MB memory module with more sale (may) =
.
Quite the contrary, he would with pleasure, a 537 MB memory module
sell!
2. We had already, 3.5 "floppy disks, there are (and no
8.89 cm disks), as well as 15 "-, 17 -, and other monitors.

So now you calmed times. As long as one knows what the other
says, is the "standardization" has no preference. And if I 'ne 60 IEC-GB-P latte
buy, I know now that they are only 55.9-GB Informatiker h =
at.

--
Josef Möllers (penguin keeper at FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
- T. Pratchett





Antwort von Günter_Hackel:

On 06.02.2006 08:41, Helmut Hulle wrote:

>
> No.. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
> The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
>
> Alternative
>
> 1 Mbyte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>

Sigh, wan will probably finally rumsprechen that there are differences
between bits and bytes there?

kbit (kilobit)
1 kbit (abbreviated kb) corresponds to 1024 bits.
Since a byte contains 8 bits is: 1 Kbit = 128 bytes.

KB (kilobytes).
1 kByte (abbreviated KB) equals 1024 bytes.
Since a byte contains 8 bits is: 1 kbyte = 8192 bits.

or synonymous:

Bit

0 or 1

Byte (b)

8 (= 23) bit

KiloByte (kilo bytes, kilobytes, KB, K, k)

IEC: KibiByte (KiB)

1,024 (= 210) bytes

8,192 (= 213) bit

MB (mega byte, MB, MB, M)

IEC: MeBiByte (MiB)

1,024 (= 210) KiloByte

1,048,576 (= 220) bytes

8,388,608 (= 223) bit

GigaByte (Giga Byte, GB, GB, G)

IEC: GiBiByte (GiB)

1,024 (= 210) MegaByte

1,048,576 (= 220) KiloByte

1,073,741,824 (= 230) bytes

8,589,934,592 (= 233) bit

TeraByte (Tera Byte, TB, TB, T)

IEC: TeBiByte (TiB)

1,024 (= 210) GigaByte

1,048,576 (= 220) MegaByte

1,073,741,824 (= 230) KiloByte

1,099,511,627,776 (= 240) bytes

8,796,093,022,208 (= 243) bit

Petabyte (Peta byte PByte, PB, P)

IEC: PeBiByte (PiB)

1,024 (= 210) TeraByte

1,048,576 (= 220) GigaByte

1,073,741,824 (= 230) MegaByte

1,099,511,627,776 (= 240) KiloByte

1,125,899,906,842,624 (= 250) bytes

9,007,199,254,740,992 (= 253) bit

Exabyte (Exa byte EByte, EB, E)

IEC: ExBiByte (EIB)

1,024 (= 210) Petabyte

1,048,576 (= 220) TeraByte

1,073,741,824 (= 230) GigaByte

1,099,511,627,776 (= 240) MegaByte

1,125,899,906,842,624 (= 250) KiloByte

1,152,921,504,606,846,976 (= 260) bytes

9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (= 263) bit




Antwort von Helmut Hullen:

Hi, Joseph,

Du (josef.moellers) my test s.07.02.06:

>> Simply nonsense. People Dich mal slightly with commercial law.
>> And Competition.

> And you with the normative force of facticity:
> 1 If there really is so against the trade and competition
> Would not a dealer with 512MB memory module to selling more
> (May).

When the customer gets something more: no problem.

Many greetings!
Helmut









Antwort von Alexander Noe':

Andre Stork wrote:

>>> and in still older einm bug was still rather late (when
>>> exactly, I do not know more).
>>
>> 1GB, and that was synonymous not a bug ...
>
>
>
> Aha, so that calmed me:)
> I can only remember that it was in the
> Always connection of 'faulty implementation'
> Or 'development errors from Microsoft' to
> Speech was.

The MCI said simply that AVI files are not larger than 1 GB
should. The behavior was documented, and, as I see it,
intended. From a bug, I would not talk.

MFG
Alexander




Antwort von Andre Beck:

Hansgeorg Falter writes:
> Helmut Hulle wrote:
>
>>
>>> This is simply factually wrong. It is not that the
>>> The scientists think, because once again what made creative
>>> should be. A kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
>> No. The repetition is not synonymous with right.
>> The Massvorsatz "kilo" means 1000th
>> Alternative:
>> 1 MByte / s = 1 kbyte / ms = 1 byte / us
>>
>
> It is by repetition to get away is not the fact that it
> Bytes at two "calculation methods", which has its origin in the
> "Definition" of kilobytes have a metric (1 KB = 1000 bytes)
> And one I'll call "practical" (1 KB = 1024 bytes).

There can be only one definition of a kilo that is loud and the SI Factor
1000 ". Nothing else. I doubt not that it is practical,
under certain circumstances (first and foremost at addressing of 2 ^ n memory
cherzellen over n address lines) to another multiplier system
use, it is quite clear to me - I am a scientist himself and was
synonymous earlier elk. Only one can not simply an imported name
Kilo as abusive redirect and thus cause endless mess,
because misunderstandings are inevitable. Moreover, it is not
obvious, for * all * memory quantities 2 ^ n-system to use, because
Sense that as I said only in RAM or the like, on address lines
target memory. Even a hard drive has no reason to
their space in 2 ^ n to designate, even if you have a 2 ^ n-sector
size basis sets. This is pure convention.

> It will not invade, the designation "1 KB memory" of a
> 1000 bytes of disk space must be held because of the binary
> Logic and addressing the necessary technology so only a
> Potency of the base 2 is possible.

But that is precisely what any ideas of this information in a somewhat complicated
Invoices must be qualified to apply. As I said (actually, I had
in my article already * everything * needed said, including the
Forecast that would come vehement contradictions;) is the most beautiful
Example of the "1.44MB" floppy. And like you a telecom -
experts will explain that your opinion of the ISDN B channel even
not 64kBit / s has only 62.5 times, I want to see synonymous. The problem
but each will be immediately apparent, the times for a moment on data rates
reflect.

> The first possible number about
> 1000 is just 1024 The is a 1 KB has established.

Has established itself only in very few people who are intensely
with computer science have been socialized. That is exactly the problem when
now with the rest of the world communicate, where Kilo doubt
1000 means always synonymous has and will continue to mean. It is
but obviously that is a mistake of the scientist was kilo (and
later, Mega, Giga, etc) factors for abuse, even the increasingly
nothing with the SI-factors have to do the same instead of an alternative
System of multipliers to be specified. This error was
resolved and the alternative system has existed for years, it has only
damn synonymous used. When I 1MiB / s writing "is quite
obvious that this is not easy with 10 ^ n-based multipliers
is compatible and any factors that you and her can push.

--
The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"

-> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck ABP-RIPE Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <--

Antworten zu ähnlichen Fragen: max.Dateigrösse bei AVI 1 Kilobyte = 1000 Byte (was: max.Dateigrösse bei AVI) Wie DV-PAL (SD) in verlustfreies Format komprimieren - wegen Dateigrösse Was sind AVI-1 und AVI-2? iPhone 11 Pro Max FS700 max. Betriebsstunden DVD Player max 32 cm breit MAD MAX The Wizard Trailer Videoschnitt PC für max. 2500€ Beamer im Smartphone... Blackview Max 1 Max. Aufnahmelänge Osmo Pocket Matrox MXO2 Le Max unter Win 10 max. Auflösung USB-Capture Pinnacle DVC... Adobe MAX Europe 2020 wird abgesagt Max. Anzahl von Akkus im Handgepäck (Flug) Premiere CS 5.5 + Windows 10 + matrox mx02 le max = doof ^^ Nochmals: Suche: LCD-TV, max. 80cm breit Sachtler ACE XL Fluidstativkopf mit max 8 kg Traglast Virtual Dub - mp3 Ton max. 56 kbit Max. Bildquali bei Body bis 1000 € Beste aktuelle Filmkamera für max. 2000 EUR Swarm - A McGloughlin Brothers Film / Music by Max Cooper Premiere VBR 1-Pass mit gleicher Max.- & Zielrate? Adobe MAX 2016: Projekt #VoCo - Photoshop für Stimmen Nokia 9 Pureview mit 5 (!) 12 MP Zeiss Kameraoptiken für max. Dynamikumfang Adobe MAX 2020: ab morgen viele kostenlose Workshops rund um Video