Isn't the 220x intended for alpha channels, sort of like "Millions+"?
--
Jeff Cook
jeff@cookstudios.com
703-980-1104 (cell)
CookStudios.com
Freelance Video Editing
Washington DC & Portable
Quoting Dennis Degan <DennyD1@verizon.net>:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
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