Its not unreasonably uncommon. Exporting out of qt pro using h.264 w
best, full 1080, and 320 for audio its not uncommon to be between
50-100mb. Its weird when you're used to uncompressed qt's 300-800mb
but I see it a lot for :30 commercial delivery.
I wouldn't edit w it but for a client or a broadcast commercial dub yes.
On 10/21/11, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Finder Info shows the same size as QT. It just seems like a low number for
> 24 secs of 1080I video.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Tim McLaughlin <mcltim.156@...> wrote:
>>
>> Forget what Quicktime says - what dies the Finder say? Get info on the
>> file.
>>
>> I've found Quicktime to be just flat-out WRONG a lot of the time. The
>> Finder
>> is never wrong.
>> --
>> Tim McLaughlin
>> Final Cut and Avid Editor
>> http://vimeo.com/mcltim
>> www.mcltim.com
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:02 PM, John Moore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>>
>> > **
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a 24 second .mov file for final delivery and the file size is
>> > 57.60
>> > MB according to QT 7. Format is H.264 1920x1080. Millions AAC. Stereo
>> > (LR)
>> > 48.000 KHz
>> > FPS: 29.97. This seems really small for 24 secs of 1080I HD video.
>> > This
>> > is video with noise to make it look like a 70's/80's sitcom open. I
>> > usually
>> > expect around a gig a minute for full res files, obviously this varies
>> > but
>> > my ball park says it should be around 400MB not 57. The video is live
>> > action stuff so it's not some super optimized graphic element. I'm told
>> > the
>> > graphics company are young kids so you decide what that means. I said
>> > we
>> > need an uncompressed .mov in animation at best or prores. This is for
>> > an HD
>> > 1080I 59.94 HDCam delivery to a cable network so I think this file isn't
>> > up
>> > to snuff. Given all the noise and grain crap in the video it might not
>> > really make much difference but I want a bigger file to compare. Am I
>> > nuts? I hate to think that the graphics company is trying to save
>> > render
>> > time and upload time at the expense of quality. I don't usually think
>> > of
>> > H.264 as the proper format to deliver graphic elements for an
>> > online edit but I'm sure there are many flavors of H.264 I'm just use to
>> > getting highly compressed versions for approval. Any insight as to
>> > something I'm overlooking here would be appreciated.
>> >
>> > John Moore
>> >
>> > Barking Trout Productions
>> >
>> > Studio City, CA
>> >
>> > bigfish@...
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
No comments:
Post a Comment