Re: video conversion


Subject: Re: video conversion
From: Tim Sutton (timsutton@fastmail.fm)
Date: Tue Dec 07 2004 - 13:54:16 EST


Well, if you're wanting no quality loss, it doesn't hurt to use a
lossless codec for any intermediate stage of your process where you need
to move between programs (like an MPEG-2 encoder in a DVD authoring
program). Uncompressed video takes up mega disk space, and even though
it doesn't have to be decompressed, your hard drive(s) need to work a
lot harder to access and scrub through the video, so there are CPU power
vs. hard drive drive issues you'll probably have to experiment with.

Huffyuv is free for Windows. Microcosm (http://www.digitalanarchy.com)
seems to be very effective (and decompresses fast I think), but it costs
$99. If you're using Quicktime, it seems most people will use the
Animation codec at best quality, but I'm not sure how much of a
compression ratio you'll achieve (but it is lossless).

These options probably aren't as important if you're not having to go
between programs regularly (to do batch processing/effects for example),
but still might be useful if you're working with a lot of material and
don't want to clear the HD space for a 100GB video clip.

--Tim

Richard Wentk wrote:
> At 11:10 06/12/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> That's very helpful. I had completely overlooked the consideration for
>> NTSC
>> or PAL. This piece is written with a European performance in mind.
>>
>> To Clarify:
>>
>> When you say "save the file uncompressed at the working audio rate", what
>> type of file should I choose? MPEG2?
>
>
> Avi 'uncompressed.'
>
> Uncompressed saves every frame as the equivalent of a BMP. It's
> fantasically wasteful of disk space, but you get no quality loss at all.
> It's probably overkill for your project in quality terms, but it's also
> the fastest and most transparent way to get video out one piece of
> software into another without making any assumptions about what format
> it needs to be.
>
> You could actually export your file from Vegas in any format, but most
> will introduce some quality loss (not a huge problem here) and will take
> a fantastically long time to render (much more of a problem, as you'll
> have to render again in DVD Architect to get the final DVD-optimised
> MPEG anyway.)
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST