220x has a slightly higher compression ration in order to maintain the same
data rate as the 8 bit 220.
Resolution is the same.
Dom Q. Silverio
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
> A friend said he imported a CG QT file as 220 and 220X and the files are
> the same size. He is speculating that the 10 bit codec must have to have
> lower resolution in order for the file sizes to be the same. I'm not sure
> what exactly he means by the same size, I can't imagine they would be
> exactly the same size. I'm trying to get more specifics. Would it make any
> sense that the 10 bit codec might allow for more efficient compression than
> 8 bit? I would really doubt there would be a loss of resolution to
> accomodate more color depth. Ultimately the concern is image quality when
> resizing shots. 220X should be better than 220 for everything right? If not
> I'm feeling everything I know is wrong.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> 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.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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