|
|
Posted by nappy on 04/18/07 17:23
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:132b7sursor875f@corp.supernews.com...
> "jazu" wrote ...
>> I use vegas for editing. Vegas captures from camcorder and stores as avi
>> files. Avi takes a lot memory on HD.
>> I'd like to take all these avi to render to mpes for future editing. To
>> keep mpes and deletes avis to save memory space. Now for editing I would
>> insert these rendered mpeg, do my editing and render again. Every step I
>> would use best quality two step encoding.
>
> Are you editing MPEG now? Or are you editing DV and then
> rendering to MPEG when you are done. You may not be
> very happy with editing MPEG video, although the process
> is improving, the quality never improves once you have
> degraded it to MPEG.
>
>> (are encoding and rendering the same operation?)
>
> Essentially, yes.
Except that rendering produces an uncompressed image and encoding takes that
image and formats it per the codec spec. I like to break the two down like
that. Since I do a lot of rendering seperately from any actual encoding
process. While the two may happen simultaneously they are in fact distinct
processes.
Other than that.. Crowley's always right.
>
>> The whole purpose of it is to save memory on HD.
>> I hope now you undestand more my question.
>
> Simply saving the original camera tapes is SO MUCH
> BETTER (and easier, faster, and cheaper) than ANYTHING
> you can do with your computer that it is not even debatable.
>
> If the video isn't worth the $5/hour cost of the tape, then
> it wasn't worth shooting, and not worth archiving, either.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|