The finished video is only about half an hour. I"m putting the final touches on this year's now.

I'll mail it out to a few close friends and family in early December.

For the 34th consecutive year, it's our annual video yearbook.

I'm sure my time on the blog long ago expired, Sherrin.

It was definitely a magical couple of weeks, but it's been a decade. I didn't even have gray hair then!

It's certainly possible, John. And from the looks of things, this is where Ted was going.

But if you're going to watch it on your computer, I don't think you need to take the extra steps. The results will be the same, since 640x480 square pixels is the same size as 720x576 4:3 non-square.

If that's the case, I'd go with progressive scan and no interlacing at all. The 30 fps frame rate is also fine -- so if it were me I'd just use the standard Export & Share/Computer output. Although if the file size concerns you, you can always try to Quick Export and see what the results look li...

Where do you plan to post the video? If you're planning to post it online, I'd go with progressive frames -- no interlacing at all.

If you're planning to use your output video to create a DVD, then it depends on the interlacing that DVD authoring program uses. You'll want to use the same.

I'm not sure I can be much help here, Ted. I don't work in PAL so it could well be that Adobe doesn't have 25 fps outputs. I guess maybe they just assume most outputs are now for posting online where 30 fps is kind of the standard. But that doesn't explain why your Quick Export is so much smaller th...

Is your project set up at 25 fps? Are you installed in a PAL rather than NTSC format?

Definitely interesting.

Ick. But I guess like old "Lomo" Russian cameras, they have a cult following.

Ah, the good old days. When picture quality standards were so low.

Very nice!

Very nice!

Nice!

Okay, stop. Just stop.

We used to have a pet rat -- that I truly loved.

But this is too much.