-
QT vs MPEG2 storage…anyone?
Hey Premiere Gurus,
My question revolves around storage and finding a viable alternative to using those bulky, space draining high-res, Animation codec QT files.
Here’s what I mean;
I usually export high-res, 720X480, Animation QT files as a master source file to either store away clips (thereby preserving my original edits)or to be able to call upon those high-res QT files to re-edit/re-package and re-export them.
As you all know high-res QT’s are insanely large, so I’ve been looking for an alternative format that can essentially replace it. I know that the Animation codec preserves a heck of a lot of data (hence, the large file size), but can anyone think of a space saving alternative? *Knowing that -in my case -my end format is delivered at 320X240 WMV, with an average weight of 25MB.
Well…I’ve done some tests and believe that format to be MPEG2.
Here’s what I did to come to that conclusion;
I exported a master mpeg2 file from a high-res QT. They looked astonishingly similar (it even beat out the same file encoded as a QT in DV/NTSC format).
I then took that mpeg2 file and brought it into Premiere in a 720X480 sequence. It imported and played back just fine.
I then exported it as a WMV file 320X240 (which is the master source file used for mobile video content). It looked great. And did I mention that my new master MPEG2 file is only 38mb compared to the 1.58G QT file.
So really, my question ladies and gents is;
Can anyone think of a reason why I should NOT use MPEG2 files as my master/source editing/master storage file?
Because as it looks to me, this is a very viable storage solution. Especially since my material is aimed at the mobile market and is not intended for broadcast.
Thanks for any input all!
-filmapprentice
-
2 Replies
-
Well, the problem lies in the fact that Mpeg2 isn’t really editable, and will degrade quite a bit after your second export.
Now, if that is going to the web “only” then you can experiment with lower bit rates on QT Animation. But if you end up having to mix that in with HD footage at a later time you will bite yourself. Remember that web quality will improve over time, and might actually be superior to TV someday, (if webcasts still exist), and given how cheap hard drives are getting…
Vince
-
Keep your footage as usable as possible, and don’t use MPG for archiving. Try PNG compression at “Best” quality. It is lossless, but efficient. If you are really pressed for space, I’d use photo-JPEG QTime, at about 95% quality. But my guess is that drive space is much cheaper than your time is…
-jeff
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up