Format/codec - .m2t .mov - Madness!

OK, I'll try to express what I've learned in the last few days of poking around without sticking my foot in.

The bottom line is this: Based on my own limited experience and knowledge, and also the opinion posited by various others I have spoken to, having restrictive acceptance policies for media submission is a ridiculous thing.

In this day and age, anybody, on any platform, editor, graphics program, or whatever, can take pretty much any media, at any resolution/frame rate/codec, and either use it directly or use any one of half a billion free or cheap programs to modify the media's attributes to their liking, or that of whatever software is in use.

Why on earth would the end user want me to take my camera-native .m2t files and do ANYTHING to them? They could turn a 30 MB file into a noisier 400 MB file just as easily as I could, and probably faster, given that they didn't have to spend the extra time downloading it in the first place. From my POV, if I was searching for media for a project, I would want it unmolested, in its native form and size. I could then screw with it to my heart's desire after that.

Having a very slow DSL connection, I balk at the onerous task of going through all my clips to make mountains out of molehills, and then spend 8 hours uploading a 12 second file!

I'm glad P5 seems willing to accept .m2t files. That, and the set-your-own-price system has me thinking that this is the best place to be for a newbie stock footage producer.

Now, back to the fun job of deleting piles of files I once thought were good, and scheming and planning on getting some decent stuff to work with....

For those interested, I shoot with an HVR-Z5u (dangit---more on that later), edit with Vegas Pro 9 on an antiquated Thinkpad t60.

Thanks for hearing me. I have a lot to learn.

I guess you have a point about the native m2t files.being smaller and the end user can convert them just as easy.
Problem is, some buyers may not have the know how to do that and want a ready to drop in their time line. But maybe not most.

The other thing is personally I wouldn't upload a clip right from my camera without editing for content and color correcting, brighten, higher contrast than camera acquired etc.

So if I'm editing I may as well render the file the way most sites want it and the way that its easier for most buyers to use it.

If you have slow DSL, don't let that make the decision for uploading low contrast files right from the camera that may or may not sell when the next guy is uploading bright higher contrast video.
If its possible, get faster DSL or cable which is faster anyway.

Jake

I agree with jake. Most agencies will not accept m2t files so why have several different versions. Prior to Premier Pro CS5 m2t files still were not easy to work with. I have to think that there are a lot of backyard producers, office presentations and web site developers that have little idea on converting files, even if there are dozens of free programs that will do it. I also edit every video in one-way-or-another, I do not think any file straight from the camera is ready to sell. If nothing else just trimming the front and end to remove shakes, a little level or contrast, some brightening, maybe some saturation, but I never add any sharpening. One of the big draws to video stock is that an end user does not have to either go out on their own or hire someone to go take a video for their use. They can look over a half million choices and they are in a very easy to edit and use format. Many computers from only a couple years ago still have problems on the highly compressed formats. For the time being, Photo and Motion JPEG is and will stay the primary formats used in stock video. Yup, I sure wish a 50mb file was as usable as the 500mb one also.

Nearly 2 years ago i had a Panasonic camcorder and i've learned to hate the m2t/m2ts codecs. Don't know what is going up in between, but before it was nearly unpossible to find a free tool for converting this codecs. So at last i had to buy a tool especially for converting m2ts, and even this tool wasn't a great solution.
More bad than this (at that time not long ago) all standart media players didn't play m2ts files.

Having spoken with several buyers over the last few years there are actually 2 types of buyers, but i think 3

1. Some that love having a finished complete clip that they don't have to touch in regards to color correction, quality etc..
2. Others that insist on "raw" originals.

They are both capable of doing anything they want to any clip you provide, but the first one loves the idea of not having the extra work. The second one is typically going to do some compositing anyway.

The 3rd type of buyer, and this sector is growing rapidly, are simply "quick cutters" that create stuff for the web, tv commercials and anything else that shows off moving pictures. Some have tremendous experience, others do not. I have started providing (particularly when it comes to specialty markets such as VJ loops etc.) a bit of both.

I came to this conclusion after speaking with several local DJ/VJ's and entertainment oriented companies - some are absolutely savvy when it comes to editing, and some are not. But even the ones that are savvy appreciate the flexibility of having both.

Keep in mind, just as Jake pointed out - not everyone has a gazillion plug-ins, not everyone has powerful editing bays, but everyone loves to get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible.

In regards to what Don says about "I do not think any file straight from the camera is ready to sell." - what you think and what the facts are, seem to differ quite a bit. No offense Don, but Chuck (artist:holtocw) drops clips straight from his camera without editing anything and look at his top sellers. It's not the finish or the camera, but the content that matters. This is why clips from yesteryear still sell.

As far as the format goes - quicktime .mov is probably the most recognized and safest to offer. The Sony m2t compression format is somewhat "hazey" when it comes to acceptance across the board. For example - Sony Vegas loves that format - naturally, since it's Sony.. But even today with AE CS5 - I still have issues once in a while with certain files. Usually due to their size and due to the actual access speed of the hardware itself. This has been documented at Adobe. One needs super fast drives to make it fly. Will that go away - doubtful - but this comes right back to the point - not everyone can just afford to go out and purchase new hardware for a project, nor software. It's best to make it easy for the masses. That's just my 10 cents.

What I meant about dropping straight from the camera to the agency is I seldom shoot a 20 second capture, normally a minute of two. So from that it needs to be cut back in length to the sell-able 15-30 seconds. Since I'm "cutting" the ends or removing any movement, I can but usually don't make any "enhancements". Chuck shoots some great combat footage, movement or handheld shots are acceptable and actually more realistic. As you know, P5 is one or maybe the only agency that will accept handheld shots unless it's a one-of-a-kind footage; Chucks are in that category. I contacted Chuck when he uploaded his first "special Ops" footage, he was selling it for $40-50, sure glad he listened to suggestions and increased pricing to where it belonged, I think he's happy with current pricing also.

Thanks for the responses. I know I have a lot to develop as far as workflow, and much more in the knowledge dept.

As far as my terminology, "camera native" to me meant "in the same format as produced by the camera" with no processing OTHER THAN trimming the head and tail, and removing audio unless it is pertinent.

I understand that if I were to apply color correction or other processing, rendering it back into a lossy .m2t would be foolish. I was simply thinking that trimmed, but otherwise unenhanced footage, with no recompression, was as good as it got, not considering that color correction might not only enhance the footage itself, but the likelihood of the thumbnail "popping" in comparison to its neighbors.

However, I don't understand why, if I do this work to make something look better, why do I not de-interlace? Especially if I have combing.....why would that not be considered "improvement processing"?

For what it's worth, I am not particularly happy about having a camera that shoots 1080/60i OR 1080/30p. Seems to me that if I wanted a true, "natural" look, 60p would be the way to go. 30p just looks choppy. And had I "known" about HDV, I wouldn't have purchased this camera. Anyone wanna buy a HVR-Z5u?

As far as uploading, this DSL is all I can get here in rural Alaska. My upload speed is about 32 KB/sec. It's not a matter of money or choice....it's the best I can get. A few more miles out and I wouldn't even have that.....

So I understand, not only because of Jake's concise response, but also because of the further elaborations and examples. Thanks!

Now I have two more questions:

Considering that a single 10-20 second file will likely take me a huge amount of time, is there an appropriate way to show a gallery of videos via my own site, then posting those links to get critiques so that I don't waste a ton of time/energy uploading for curator approval?

Also, when using Streamclip, I notice that it doesn't recognize HDV 1440x1080 as 16:9. I messed with it a whole bunch, and either end up with goofy aspect ratio, or letterboxing. Should I let it upscale to 1920x1080, which seems to look pretty good? I'm usually against upconverting either audio or video.

Thanks again!

Yes to the upconverting - that is what HDV is all about - Sony HDV is 1440 and is designed to be up converted to 1920 so to speak. AS far as getting reviewed - not likely as most don't have the time. If uploading is an issue, perhaps loading and shipping a hard drive to P5 directly would be more effective. They do accept footage that way and will of course return your drive to you. The objective here is not to judge people's clips as that is too subjective. If you asked for opinions, you will get a full rainbow. :) So I wouldn't go by that.

@Mizamook the only problem with sending a hard drive is that it may take a month or more before your clips ready for tagging. Again I would suggest you download a free copy of FileZilla and useit for uploading. Setup clips you want upload while you sleep but keep in mind that a 200mb may take 2 hours to complete at 32kb.

For what it's worth, it might take the same amount of time sending a drive as it would to upload the same amount of clips. That might be sarcasm - However, I don't think I have that much material, so uploading one or two per night may work well.

I rendered the same clip four times, each with slightly less % on the quality slider. Based on a still frame (identical) with a pretty serious crop factor, I could detect loss of quality only when I dropped below 85%. 75% was bad. Tragically, at 75%, a 16-second clip is 250 MB. The clip is of mist moving over a still water surface, mostly gray, with slanting sunlight illuminating the lower middle third of the mist. Not a lot of movement. It was an interesting experiment.

I have much work to do. Whoever said this was easy wasn't .... oh, wait....no-one said anything like that!

Thanks for all the help.....I hope to add worthy content soon!