You’re not going to get a definitive answer. If all you’ve got is H.264 then that’s what’s gotta go into the programme, otherwise you’ll have a hole!
The H.264 file can be re-encoded into uncompressed for you to play it out but, as I’m sure you already realise, it won’t improve the picture quality.
Is it good enough? Well, this is debatable. It really depends on the type of picture and how much of the H.264 compression they’ve added. As an on-line editor I guess it’s really your call.
Should you push to get uncompressed quicktimes? Of course, as a professional you should be aiming to achieve the best possible product for your client. If they’re supplying sub-standard files when top-notch is available then you should be asking for the file again. Don’t let the in-experienced dictate your job.
The more times you compress along the post production chain the more noticable it’s effect will be. In certain cases the unwanted artifacts that compression adds are amplified everytime the picture is re-compressed, until you have something that looks terrible.
In my opinion you should be creating uncompressed master tapes. i.e. The best quality you can possibly achieve. How much it is compressed by the broadcaster or webmaster is up to them, but atleast you’re giving them a choice. Who knows, in the future technology may be good enough so we don’t have to compress for the internet or broadcast. When this happens all your masters will need re-making…
Simon Kotowicz
http://www.onlineeditor.co.uk