Andy Mees
Forum Replies Created
-
All I want to know is then – will it be good quality to show on a reasonably large screen and if not is there anything that I can do to change that.
In a word, No … it will look like crap, but if you work that in as a stylistic element and/or heavily treat the image then you may get away with it.
That said, two things in your favour:
1) Content is everything. If you tell a compelling story then folks will enjoy it regardless of whether the image is soft when blown up so large
and 2) Your audio doesn’t have to suffer because you visual recording medium is of low quality. Folks will happily watch low quality images if the audio is good quality but not vice versaI have asked many people about this and I get varying opinions.
And those varying opinions will keep on coming. The question is do you have any choice?
-
i’m guessing just a typo, but just to clarify fro the OP:
DV PAL is 25p/50i at 720 x576 lower field first -
thanks for that . yeah, sometimes you just get what you get … CC handles it pretty well but as always Garbage In Garbage Out
-
No.
-
Hi Rafael
I did some tests recently with a shooter in Hong King who was using an EX3. Got him to export / compress a 30″ native codec test sequence:
1. using MPEG Streamclip to convert to MPEG-4 / H264 scaled to SD frame size
2. directly from FCP to SD H264 using Quicktime Conversion
3. using MPEG Streamclip to convert to MPEG-4 / “Apple MPEG4” scaled to SD frame size
4. using MPEG Streamclip to convert to MPEG-4 / H264 unscaled (ie maintaining HD frame size)No. 4 was the runaway winner. The picture quality and general definition was vastly superior to the others, it held up the best during motion within the frame, pans and zooms, and surprisingly it also produced the smallest file size of the methods tested. If I were to rank them in order of overall quality it would be as below:
1st – 4. (47.9MB)
2nd – 1. (55.3MB)
3rd – 3. (73.7MB)
4th – 2. (53.2MB)So no, not specifically for compatibility but because it looks good and sends faster!
Cheers
Andy -
Greg
You still haven’t told us what your source format is, you need to offer up that info so we can folks can assess just how much compression is needed. Additionally remember that you are plainly asking for recommendations for a heavily compressed delivery format … formats that by their nature are not especially suitable for editing after the fact, so whatever you end up sending both you and those receiving the file need to bear in mind that it will almost certainly need to be transcoded to a more suitable edit format. Fwiw H.264 is actually an exceptionally good delivery codec that scales very well so you might not want to dismiss it out of hand. That said, if there are specific delivery restrictions that you’re aware of and haven’t mentioned then it would certainly make sense to share that.
Another thought, if you are constrained by 100MB file restrictions, have you considered delivering as a number of smaller segments in full native quality and having them reassemble at the other end when they do the subtitling?
Cheers
Andy -
What’s the source format? For HD, at the moment I’m liking MPEG Streamclip’s unscaled MPEG4 compression.
-
Are you editing 16:9 footage in a 4:3 sequence? Editing directly in a 16:9 sequence might be a better workflow, but if you’re happy the way it is then your best bet is to add a letterbox matte over the top of the clip and the resize and reframe that underlying clip appropriately. You can make a letterbox matte easily by cropping a couple of slugs to fit, or you can make one in Photoshop, or by endless other methods. You could also use a letterbox generator, loads available off the web including one on my own web page at https://web.me.com/andymees
-
If a job’s worth doing its worth doing well, Bjoern.
Congrats on the new release.Best
Andy -
Daniel,
If one does have FLV as a source are you recommending some form of transcode prior to feeding it into Carbon Coder … or is the “never use” rule meant more as a general avoid at all costs thing?
Cheers
Andy