Sounds like someone who just wants to have a bigger d*ck than you. "I never edit compressed and I drive a Porsche"
With the exception of spot work and feature film DI, I can't see uncompressed HD as being that critical. I mean, if someone wants to pay the premium for it, that's awesome. Otherwise, why? Especially with a strong codec at a decent bandwidth... and ESPECIALLY since most of the crap that gets thrown at us is coming from highly compressed SOURCES to begin with. What's the point of taking 35 MegsPerSecond XDCAM up to uncompressed? Or P2?
Steve Hullfish
contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:36 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Uncompressed or Compressed That is the Question?
> I was recently told by a Post Supervisor that he had always worked uncompressed on his shows. My experience primarily in Avid is everyone works in DNX in HD which is compressed but a strong codec. In FCP I thought Prores was the codec of choice kinda the DNX of the Final Cut world. For short pieces I can see how uncompressed would be viable. In SD I always do 1:1 uncompressed but never in HD for my hour long projects and series. Beside overall drive space doesn't uncompressed put a heavy tax on bandwidth even if the actual processing of the data is more efficient the amount of sheer data seems problematic on a large series scale. Curious what others think.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment