-
H264 vs FCP Quicktime
My first post…here it goes,
My boss wants to start archiving all our projects in H264 instead of our standard raw FCP Quicktime format. His argument is it will save space on our DVD and Hard drive backups. I’m not bothered by saving space considering how cheap DVD’s and external hardrives are…but whatever.
However, we are both wondering if there is a real quality loss in H264, or if the info that the raw FCP file is losing is merely “readible” data used by FCP.
Obviously archiving is used in case we need the file again for editing, so if there is a quality loss then I would not want to use the H264 format. I like my backed up files RAW, dripping with blood!!! To tell you the truth I don’t want to use H264 for archiving at all, considering how hard it seems to work with in FCP. It’s a great delivery codec…but that’s it!
Anyway, is it wisdom to go to the H264 or not?
Thanks!
Adam Hofmann
Senior Editor/Media Assistant
Crossroads Creative -
9 Replies
-
[Adam Hofmann] “Anyway, is it wisdom to go to the H264 or not? “
Not if you ever intend to edit with those files in the future or do anything else other than deliver them to the web. I would never archive in that format, it’s simply a Web and BluRay delivery format, NOT an archive format.
When you archive something you’re saving it in case you need to do any work with those files again in the future. H.264 is not an editing format. The best way to archive material is to save it in the native format. So if you edit in DV for example, then archive in DV.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
What’s your source material?
-
All our finished work: video, motion graphics, etc. is exported in DV NTSC setting From Final Cut, After Effects, Motion, whatever. I was 99% sure not to archive in anything but our working settings, but I just wanted other professionals to back me up when I go to my boss about it. When he first told me this I got a little scared 🙂
But does anyone know how the H264 compression works. Cause it looks incredible compared to other codecs.
Thanks for the speediness in your replies!
Adam Hofmann
-
I think you’ve answered your own question. If you have the space your so-called “raw” file is the best.
(Liked the “dripping with blood” part too). H.264 is a delivery codec. Here’s a thread on Apple’s site that might help a bit:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1443727
Ed[Adam Hofmann] “My first post…here it goes,
My boss wants to start archiving all our projects in H264 instead of our standard raw FCP Quicktime format. His argument is it will save space on our DVD and Hard drive backups. I’m not bothered by saving space considering how cheap DVD’s and external hardrives are…but whatever.
However, we are both wondering if there is a real quality loss in H264, or if the info that the raw FCP file is losing is merely “readible” data used by FCP.
Obviously archiving is used in case we need the file again for editing, so if there is a quality loss then I would not want to use the H264 format. I like my backed up files RAW, dripping with blood!!! To tell you the truth I don’t want to use H264 for archiving at all, considering how hard it seems to work with in FCP. It’s a great delivery codec…but that’s it!
Anyway, is it wisdom to go to the H264 or not?
“ -
Well, if you’re in dv, then use DV. If you were in a higher quality codec, I’d use PhotoJPEG as an archive codec. Great codec with 4:4:4 possibilities with mangeable file sizes and data rates. Perfect for archiving and is cross platform natively in Quicktime.
H264 is MPEG4 based. MPEG4 is usually a GOP based codec so the frames that you see are not discreet frames, but rather rely on the other frames around them for encoding information. H264 even has crazy abilities to reorder frames so that they decompress in a different order than they are displayed. NLEs typicaly want discreet frames as it makes it easier for compositing/rendering as it takes out a bunch of guess work (i.e. encoding) when creating media. In typical video codecs, each frame or field is discreet in a defined moment in time (such a evey 60th or 30th or 24th of a second). When creating h264 video, the picture is looked at as a whole then encoded with the information with surrounding frames to conserve bandwidth and allow for low data rates for streaming or transmission. It deso not, however, lend itself to frame based editing/composting/rendering and quality that is done with NLEs.
Hope that helps a bit.
There are codecs that are based on Mpeg4 that allow discreet frames (or intra frames as it’s known). AVC-Intra is a great example of this. At this time, it is not supored natively in FCP.
Jeremy
-
I’m in with the others – H.264 is a pretty good delivery codec, but it’s very lossy. I’d certainly never use it for that purpose.
-
Thanks for all the input. I do want to clarify that the H264 settings are at full resolution and capacity when comparing it to raw FCP Quicktime. Visually there seems to be no difference and the H264 is about a fourth of the size.
But unless this changes anything, I appreciate again all the input. I’ve already talked with my boss and we’re keeping the raw files for archiving…still mooing!
Adam Hofmann
Senior Editor/Media Assistant
Crossroads Creative -
[Adam Hofmann] “Visually there seems to be no difference and the H264 is about a fourth of the size. “
That’s becuase there’s no intra frame compression, which is what I was alluding to earlier. Also, H264 is much more compressed than even dv.
Jeremy
-
The main thing is that H.264 doesn’t play well with FCP. It’s just like MPEG-2 and HDV in that it uses interframes, which makes FCP work harder. I’m sure it looks good, but overall it’s easier to edit QTs exported from FCP (if you have the storage).
Ed
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up