I have no idea. I've just been on the receiving end at this point. My gut tells me to ask for a prores or animation .mov of the same thing. I'm trying to find out if that is ridiculous request or unnecessary in terms of actual quality. Just because it's H.264 doesn't mean it's low quality, right? H.264 is generally processor intensive but does that mean it is more compressed and therefore lower quality than say a .mov in the animation codec set to best? My biggest clue that it might be of a lower quality is the sheer size of 57 ish MB for 24 secs that seems low to me but maybe I'm wrong with my concern over size, does it matter (pun intended). ;-)
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, James Culbertson <albion@...> wrote:
>
> What was their reason for not sending you a ProResHQ version?
>
> James
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:54 PM, johnrobmoore wrote:
>
> > Saving it from a small original isn't really going to gain me anything. I just want to make sure I'm not getting an inferior product. I'm just not use to a file being this small for 24 secs of 1080I. But from what others have said it's not that uncommon. This is a graphic open title sequence so it shouldn't be delivered in an overly compressed form in my opinion. I can't see any problems with it but they put a bunch of noise effect on the video so it's really hard to tell. A part of me feels like I've just been handed a VHS tape for my graphic master but with a file I can only go by the file size as an indicator of how compressed it might be.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Benjamin Hershleder <Ben@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John, if you're worried, save it out as ProRes HQ.
> > >
> > > B
> > >
> > >
> > > Benjamin Hershleder
> > > http://ContactBen.com
> > > http://Hershleder.com
> > >
> > > Wear It In Post!
> > > Fun T-shirts, mousepads, mugs & more
> > > for Post Production Professionals
> > > http://www.WearItInPost.com
> > >
> > > On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:24 PM, James Culbertson wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's not a particularly low data rate for well compressed H.264. Some content at that length could be taken down substantially below 10 MB if it is clean.
> > > >
> > > > It really depends on a lot of variables.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:32 PM, johnrobmoore wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Finder Info shows the same size as QT. It just seems like a low number for 24 secs of 1080I video.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Tim McLaughlin <mcltim.156@> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Forget what Quicktime says - what dies the Finder say? Get info on the file.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've found Quicktime to be just flat-out WRONG a lot of the time. The Finder
> > > >>> is never wrong.
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Tim McLaughlin
> > > >>> Final Cut and Avid Editor
> > > >>> http://vimeo.com/mcltim
> > > >>> www.mcltim.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:02 PM, John Moore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> **
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have a 24 second .mov file for final delivery and the file size is 57.60
> > > >>>> MB according to QT 7. Format is H.264 1920x1080. Millions AAC. Stereo (LR)
> > > >>>> 48.000 KHz
> > > >>>> FPS: 29.97. This seems really small for 24 secs of 1080I HD video. This
> > > >>>> is video with noise to make it look like a 70's/80's sitcom open. I usually
> > > >>>> expect around a gig a minute for full res files, obviously this varies but
> > > >>>> my ball park says it should be around 400MB not 57. The video is live
> > > >>>> action stuff so it's not some super optimized graphic element. I'm told the
> > > >>>> graphics company are young kids so you decide what that means. I said we
> > > >>>> need an uncompressed .mov in animation at best or prores. This is for an HD
> > > >>>> 1080I 59.94 HDCam delivery to a cable network so I think this file isn't up
> > > >>>> to snuff. Given all the noise and grain crap in the video it might not
> > > >>>> really make much difference but I want a bigger file to compare. Am I
> > > >>>> nuts? I hate to think that the graphics company is trying to save render
> > > >>>> time and upload time at the expense of quality. I don't usually think of
> > > >>>> H.264 as the proper format to deliver graphic elements for an
> > > >>>> online edit but I'm sure there are many flavors of H.264 I'm just use to
> > > >>>> getting highly compressed versions for approval. Any insight as to
> > > >>>> something I'm overlooking here would be appreciated.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> John Moore
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Barking Trout Productions
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Studio City, CA
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> bigfish@
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
No comments:
Post a Comment