|
|
Posted by Pat Horridge on 06/13/07 10:13
"Martin Heffels" <goofie@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:kcjt635j03mm7otuc47a5nvp4l9pck8avs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:33:02 +0100, Spex <No.spam@ta.com> wrote:
>
>>I normally agree with most things Martin says but I have to disagree
>>with mastering to HDV. If cost is an issue then by all means go the HDV
>>route but if quality is the issue try one of my suggestions above.
>>Rendering back to HDV IMHO is not a good idea as there is an appreciable
>>quality drop.
>
> Ah yes of course you would disagree :-)) But that's my own fault!
> I should have added: if the software smart-renders, then if you have a
> minimal amount of effects/transitions etc, then rendering back to HDV
> would
> lead to minimal loss in material (hey, sounds like a chess-game ;-) ). But
> yes, if you colour-correct and what else you might do with the material,
> the Sheer-codec or the Cineform HD-codec, would be a much better choice.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
I'd have to agree that laying back to HDV is best avoided. The
re-compression and likely hood that cuts will fit the I frame structure can
make the HDV layback look poor. Effects and colour correction will require
re-compression and can compromise the original quality.
Either layback HD-SDI to HDCam or better or convert to a frame based codec
and export as a file. If you can manage the data then uncompressed is best
as it avoids cross compression issues of using a different compression
scheme. However most modern codec's if not overcooked will have minimal
impact on the quality and greatly reduce file sizes. I do find the Avid
DNxHD codes to be really good.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|