Best compression for editing / storage at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition

General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition
Topics about HD production.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 8th, 2006, 08:00 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 186
Best compression for editing / storage

Howdy...

I'm producing some video in a custom size (480x270, 30fps). Of course, I can't render these out to DV, as the size is wrong. Currently, I have been rendering these to Uncompressed, but of course there, the file size is HUGE!

So, I'm wondering what the best way to compress these would be such that they can be edited further in the future without GOP issues. Basically, I'd like a general purpose compression like DV, which is good for editing and playback, but is resolution-adjustable, unlike the DV codec...

Anyone have a good idea? I'd go with cineform, but I don't think they'll support the size I need.

Thanks for your suggestions...

- Ben
Ben Freedman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 08:58 AM   #2
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta/USA
Posts: 2,507
Are you filming in regular format? If so, I would keep the original format for editing and compress only the final product with something like Sorensen Sqeeze that lets you adjust pretty much anything you want, including size.
__________________
Ervin Farkas, CDVS
Certified Legal Videographer
Ervin Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 09:13 AM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 186
Thanks for the suggestion. This is a weekly show, with over 100GB of HDV footage per week. I'm not sure I can keep all the original footage, as I'd be running out of HD space on short order. You can imagine how big that would be if I saved it as uncompressed!

On another forum, the HuffYUV was suggested. I gave that a try and it gives me nearly a 3:1 space savings over uncompress with none or little loss in compression (they claim none).

That's a huge savings for me, and will be what I use in the future for compressing my rendered files (which I do hope to save, of course).

Best,

Ben
Ben Freedman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2006, 03:01 PM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Carlsbad CA
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Freedman
Howdy...

I'm producing some video in a custom size (480x270, 30fps).
why save any custom size at all? that workflow doesn't add up... just export the edited video in whatever native format it was shot in, so you can store it on video tape.

you can always re-size it later, to whatever spec is in vogue at the time... saving it on a smaller frame size could come back to hurt you, if you ever had to up-size it later.

remember that the tools you will be using in the future will most likely be a lot more powerful than they are now, so do your encoding then, not now.
Dan Euritt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2006, 05:27 PM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 186
Since I'm using video from HD, SD and computer screen captures, there is no 'native size' to save to. It' be pointless compressing it all out to HDV to store on tape when my finished size is 480x270, don't you think?

Best,

Ben
Ben Freedman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 02:13 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Carlsbad CA
Posts: 1,132
computer screens are always hi-rez definition(1024x768 or greater).

since sd is 720x480, why downsize all three formats? it sounds like you are working primarily with hdv footage, so you should go with that format, because it can be natively exported to tape for easy storage, then re-encoded to whatever format you need later on down the line.

480x270 downsizing will throw away a lot of lines of resolution that you'll never be able to get back, regardless of what codec is used.
Dan Euritt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2006, 02:53 PM   #7
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 186
So, I'd be upsampling all the SD stuff, and having to render everything back to HDV (I use cineform for editing). I can't imagine that's a work flow I'd enjoy. Rending to HDV takes a LONG time, and then I'd have to print it to tape (more time) and then delete the files on the HD... Hmm..

I already have the original HD footage on tape, so if I ever need to 'recapture' the stuff in HD, I can go back to that footage. It would take longer, but it's also an unlikely event, since this is all designed for 480x270.

Think I'll stick with HuffYUV, but thanks for the advice...

Ben
Ben Freedman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 12:53 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Carlsbad CA
Posts: 1,132
are you saying that it's going to be quicker to render everything to huffyuv, than it would be rendering it back to hdv? ack!

even if you did re-render everything back to hdv, you'd still take a picture quality hit.

you can't win with a workflow like that, and it happened because of the cineform intermediate step... if you were editing native hdv, there would be no question that you'd save your finished projects back out to hdv tape.

i've been doing web video for at least 10 years, and many moons ago i also saved finished edits at smaller frame sizes than they were shot at... only to regret it later, now that i encode native full-frame video for the web.

considering that you are doing a weekly show, it might be a good idea to dump that crippled cineform workflow... perhaps get an hdv hardware editing solution, which will also save you from having to render to cineform in the first place... canopus, liquid edition, matrox(?), etc.
Dan Euritt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 01:58 PM   #9
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 186
Hi, Dan...

I'm sure your work is far superior to mine, but I am very happy with this workflow, and my only issue was the size of the uncompressed files, which has been resolved...

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.

Best,

Ben
Ben Freedman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2006, 04:16 PM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 186
Just a quick update...

I've noticed a few issues with Huffy that I haven't found with uncompressed footage...

1) Doesn't play nice with quicktime. Apple's quicktime player won't recognize a huffy-encode .avi file, even though it recognizes most other .avi's I have tried. Therefore I can't use it to convert the file to mp4, etc. Not a huge deal, as there are other ways, but good to know...

2) When convertin a Huffy file to DIVX, for some reason, the audio is a few frames out of sync. Doesn't happen when I convert from uncompressed. I notice this when converting using Vegas, DivX create, or Dr. Divx.

Again, not a deal breaker, but considering that disks are getting cheaper, I'm not sure if the benefit of Huffy will outweighs these potential liabilities...

Best,

Ben
Ben Freedman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2006, 11:56 PM   #11
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Laredo, Texas
Posts: 42
Codec Help

I did my first wedding, and would like to post in forums.

Could you guys tell me, what codec and setting I should use, in Premiere Pro 1.51 to get best quality in about 50MB 10 min video

Thank you
Nerses Papoyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 12:33 AM   #12
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerses Papoyan
I did my first wedding, and would like to post in forums.

Could you guys tell me, what codec and setting I should use, in Premiere Pro 1.51 to get best quality in about 50MB 10 min video

Thank you
Codec is entirely dependent on your audience. Windows Media is the best overall choice, but you need to know what your audience will accept. For me, I'd struggle with watching a 50MB stream...
Second, I'd recommend NOT using Premiere Pro for encoding anything. It's not exactly the quality that other tools, such as the free Windows Media Encoder will offer. You can set your target there. Look at 256 or 512mbps for acceptable speeds.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 01:18 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
You might want to shotgun the audience with choices... because not everyone can necessarily view WMV (i.e. Mac users need a special player for it). I'd both WMV and Quicktime.

WMV:
The older codecs are a bit more compatible, the newer codecs (i.e. wmv9) offer better quality.
Windows Media Player should automatically download the latest codec if the user doesn't have it. In rare cases, this automatic download will fail.

Quicktime:
Same deal.
With the sorenson3 codec (QT?3? compatible), the free encoder doesn't do that great a job. The commercial version does a much better job, almost as good as Windows Media.
H.264 is excellent quality, but requires the latest version of quicktime (7), which not everyone has. H.264 takes a lot of CPU to decode.

For simplicity's sake, it may make sense not to make that many versions. Without a pro encoding tool (procoder, cleaner, squeeze, etc.), there's nothing to batch encode your video to save time.
Glenn Chan is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > General HD (720 / 1080) Acquisition

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network