In DS, I'll usually capture 8bit and if I need to, work in a 10bit sequence. 10 bit can be beneficial for smoother gradients without stairstepping and for a bit (pun intended) more headroom for color correction. It is strange that the 10 bit and 8 bit files are the same size.
KEN
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "bouke" <bouke@...> wrote:
>
> Since it's an I frame only codec, motion is not affected by the difference.
>
> Now for the double blind test. Who wants to put up some material?
>
> Bouke
>
> VideoToolShed
> van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
> 6512 AS NIJMEGEN
> The Netherlands
> +31 24 3553311
> www.videotoolshed.com
> For large files:
> http://dropbox.yousendit.com/BoukeVahl998172
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Curtis Nichols" <curtisnpcs@...>
> To: <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Dnx220 vs. 220X file size?
>
>
> My understanding is that the 8-bit version is better for motion and detail,
> and the 10-bit version is best for gradated colors. Is that generally true?
>
>
> Curtis Nichols
> Señor Editor
> PCS Production Co.
> Irving, Tx.
> ------------------
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pat <pat@...>
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 4:20 AM
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Dnx220 vs. 220X file size?
>
>
> This is a source of constant frustration.
> We often have clients startingwith 8 bit content ultimately delivering on 8
> bit tape or 8 bit Blu-ray who want to work at 185X because 10 bit must be
> better.
> And trying to explain that they are gaining nothing and compressing more is
> very tedious.
>
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@> wrote:
> >
> > I had guessed that there was more compression happening but I wasn't sure.
> > Thanks for hitting me over the head with the data rate, duh. I won't have
> > to think twice in the future. Sometimes I find I don't understand
> > everything I thought I knew so well. ;-)
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Degan <DennyD1@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
>
> [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