-
ProRes (HQ) vs. Digibeta clone
I am new here and hope I have the right forum… if not, please kindly point me in the right direction… 😉
We have a project cloning and archiving broadcast Digibeta masters both for current online distribution, but also possible future Digibeta delivery. Originally we were cloning the DBC’s and then ingesting and encoding as needed.
We are now changing our work-flow. As it has been proposed to us, the difference in quality between a DBC made from a direct Digibeta and one made from a ProRes (HQ) file is minimal, so we are planning to take ingest the source DBC as ProRes (HQ) and then from there we will transcode to whatever file format we need or if a tape is required, we will output the ProRes (HQ) video to Digibeta.
So I need to know if this is a viable work-flow?
Is it true about the difference in quality being minimal?
If this is not the work-flow to consider, what would you reccommend?Thanks!
-
1 Reply
-
well
this will not help 😉
but we are having the same question for our archive for a specific
client. on what sort of media do you want to archive.
what is the timespan of the archiving
i still have a strong feel for archiving on tape when the material has to be stored for a realy long time. i have several harddisk from say 5year’s old which are giving trouble’s on the other hand i made dub’s from several B/C-format master’s this month. which were between 12 and 20 year’s old. one of the biggest problem’s of harddisk’s are that the mechanic’s are having the same history as the content on them. not moving for several year’s as (i speek for our company here 😉 ) our C/B format machine’s still run one’s a month but the tape’s layed on them did not move several year’s. of coarse i am talking of the old stuff but this will be true for the stuff made to day over 20years.greet
Maurice
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up