On Aug 8, 2011, at 2:58 PM, John Moore 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.
I rhetorically ask:
"What part of '220Mbps' do you not understand?" (I know, I'm being
snide . . . . sorry.)
But seriously, DNxHD 220 and DNxHD 220X both operate at 220Mbps,
hence the number in the name '220'. 220X simply has slightly more
compression in order to provide the higher bit depth. The resolution
is the identical between the two.
Dennis Degan, Video Editor-Consultant-Knowledge Bank
NBC Today Show, New York
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