- August 25, 2020 at 9:38 pm
Hi CC Community,
I have a question about archiving in H.264. I manage the archive of a small non-profit, and we have decades worth of videos of retreats that we want to archive. Of course an Apple ProRes codec would be the best codec for archiving once the video tapes are digitized. Unfortunately though, the videographer (an independent contractor) already started transferring the old VHS, Hi-8, Super VHS etc. tapes to 1080p in H.264. His stated reason for using H.264 is that better quality video files would be so large that storage of them would be a problem (It isn’t. We already have plans for a 30 TB archive).
We don’t plan to ever broadcast these videos on network television. They will likely only be shown on our website or to small live audiences.
My question is this: How bad of an idea is it to archive in H.264 on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is to be avoided at all costs and 10 is ideal (I already know that H.264 is not ideal to archive in).
Any help with this would be appreciated.
- August 26, 2020 at 10:21 am
a H264 codec is basically a non editing format. The better codec is ProRes.
But the ProRes is far bigger than the H264.
As you have analog Material, the quality of the H264 is fine.
For archiving you can use the H264. When you have to edit something you can convert the H264 into a ProRes file. When you have the ProRes file you swop the H264 for the ProRes and you can delete the H264. That is how I would do it,
Mac pro 8core
several raid systems
- August 26, 2020 at 4:57 pm
Thanks much for your reply. Not what I was expecting at all, but good news. And it makes sense.
- September 12, 2020 at 6:31 pm
H264 as an archival format is a terrible idea and transcoding the H264 to Prores is just wasting time and space. You’re not gaining anything from that.
- September 14, 2020 at 1:48 pm
So much pain comes with h264 as a means for Archiving 😛
- September 22, 2020 at 7:58 pm
Yup – nobody with experience would arrive to H.264 –
that is a “Distribution format”
Log in to reply.