> Job ter Burg wrote:
> Again, I think QuickTime is the issue and Avid's
> way to make that work is use the Avid QT codec.
I agree. QuickTime is not a professional video architecture. It was developed as a multimedia application for computer-based presentations. It currently lives on as a consumer media player and a set of legacy codecs. No one has true control of what QT does to a file except for Apple. Everyone else is reverse-engineering to get the desired results.
Avid QT-in and Avid QT-out is controllable because Avid designed it to work and controls the codec. Conversions to other formats are a bit unpredictable. For example, I can convert Avid QT files to ProRes using Compressor or I can convert them using Squeeze (or other). QT will display the Compressor-encoded files with expanded levels (to the computer screen), while the other encoded files will be washed out. Yet, both encodings are actually the same. The difference lies in the QT player and profiles that have been written into the file. This is ONLY a display issue.
Then you can add the differences between QTX and QT7. It's amazing how bad QTX actually is. It's great with H264 or uncompressed and completely abysmal with ProRes files. Go figure!
If you want to get a sense of how others feel, check out the various comments at the REDuser forum. They have the same questions, concerns and complaints, because they are trying to figure out how best to deal with grading RED images. The general consensus is that if you want predictable results, use MXF, DPX or TIFF.
- Oliver
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment