Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Dnx220 vs. 220X file size?

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@sbcglobal.net>
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@horridge.org.uk>
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]

------------------------------------

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/