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.
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