Clip submission & Repeated process for each clip
RekindlePhoto
27 Jul 2008 20:02
QT Photo JPEG should only be used for progressive clips. If the video is 60i it really should stay in Motion JPEG B. Using Photo with interlaced clips will introduce some quality issues and minor artifacts. I did a test with a high end video agency and after processing the same clips in both Motion and Photo when viewing on broadcast monitors there was definitely a quality difference. On evaluation of the Canon XH-A1 camera, it can shoot in 60i or 24 & 30f. The quality is better to shoot in 60i than the quasi progressive "f" format. It was recommended to shoot everything in 60i for submission. That company in turn really quality checks and does extra processing to convert to progressive and then Photo JPEG to sell. This really does take more work on their part but also ensures better quality to the buyers.
I do agree that Photo JPEG has smaller file sizes than Motion JPEG B. Also the file size can be reduced by using 90 or 85 or even 80% on quality. With HD quickly becoming the standard for the future, reducing quality should never be an option. who knows what the next few years will bring. My opinion is that maintaining quality should be the number one consideration and conserving computer server storage capacity should be way down the list of priority factors in the world of video. To be a successful video/footage agency in these days limiting video to small file size by reducing quality settings or introducing artifacts by using the wrong codex is a big mistake. Buyers will soon go to the higher quality and the companies that don't want to or can't afford extra storage will quickly die. It really does take money to make money. I've been owner of several multi-million dollars businesses and that is rule one ... initial and on-going investment is mandatory, cutting corners or accepting lower quality will soon destroy a business.
.
With animations and fractals it a completely different world. In this case since the computer generates the footage and it's original format is progressive, then Photo JPEG is definitely the better codex. Interlaced video has been around a long time and will still be here for a longer time. Progressive is very important, especially with more tings viewed on computers. This why I believe the winner in the war of footage agencieswill be the ones who only accepts great clean footage, does some extra processing and has the best ability to process, display and convert footage to meet the buyers demand both as interlaced Motion and progressive Photo.
With HD the successful agency must have enough server storage to accept up to 30 seconds of HD formatted video. Guess what, that means on some clips the upper limit can easily be 1 Gb per clip. I also agee that many if not most producers may only use 3-10 seconds of a clip but as producers of movies, news agencies and documentaries move to buy more stock clips 15-20 seconds will become more important. For those still shooting SD, well you will still have a market for a while. HD has the benefit to be down converted to SD also. It takes money to make money, start saving and buy an HD camera and computer to support the advancing technology.
So there is a lot of ideas I have that can really generate controversy.
Don
I do agree that Photo JPEG has smaller file sizes than Motion JPEG B. Also the file size can be reduced by using 90 or 85 or even 80% on quality. With HD quickly becoming the standard for the future, reducing quality should never be an option. who knows what the next few years will bring. My opinion is that maintaining quality should be the number one consideration and conserving computer server storage capacity should be way down the list of priority factors in the world of video. To be a successful video/footage agency in these days limiting video to small file size by reducing quality settings or introducing artifacts by using the wrong codex is a big mistake. Buyers will soon go to the higher quality and the companies that don't want to or can't afford extra storage will quickly die. It really does take money to make money. I've been owner of several multi-million dollars businesses and that is rule one ... initial and on-going investment is mandatory, cutting corners or accepting lower quality will soon destroy a business.
.
With animations and fractals it a completely different world. In this case since the computer generates the footage and it's original format is progressive, then Photo JPEG is definitely the better codex. Interlaced video has been around a long time and will still be here for a longer time. Progressive is very important, especially with more tings viewed on computers. This why I believe the winner in the war of footage agencieswill be the ones who only accepts great clean footage, does some extra processing and has the best ability to process, display and convert footage to meet the buyers demand both as interlaced Motion and progressive Photo.
With HD the successful agency must have enough server storage to accept up to 30 seconds of HD formatted video. Guess what, that means on some clips the upper limit can easily be 1 Gb per clip. I also agee that many if not most producers may only use 3-10 seconds of a clip but as producers of movies, news agencies and documentaries move to buy more stock clips 15-20 seconds will become more important. For those still shooting SD, well you will still have a market for a while. HD has the benefit to be down converted to SD also. It takes money to make money, start saving and buy an HD camera and computer to support the advancing technology.
So there is a lot of ideas I have that can really generate controversy.
Don