Jason Tammemagi
February 18th, 2004, 12:12 PM
I think I remember seeing some theories on this but a search hasn't brought up what I was looking for...
Anyway, for whatever reason the best thing for getting a post house where I am to take my footage in is to give them an image sequence. They usually take in tga sequences but can also take jpg sequences. I'd be outputting these images from Adobe After Effects. Now I've checked both tgas and jpegs (at maximum quality) and there is a massive difference in filesize. My short as a tga sequence will be over 20 gigs which means a lot of burning onto dvds and a far longer time for them taking it in (they're doing me a favour). A jpeg sequence should be just over 4 gigs and so would fit on 1 dvd which would be a lot handier for both me and them. The short is running at almost 14 minutes.
The issue, of course, is loss of quality. Looking at both tgas and jpegs there is an ever so slight difference. The tgas seem to be completely lossless. The jpegs look fine (to me) but aren't exactly the same. You have place one image on top of the other and zoom right into the pixels to see it but there is a difference. It doesn't seem to be noticeable when moving but maybe my eyes aren't as tuned to picking things like that up.
I suppose I'm just wondering if people reckon I'd get away with a jpeg sequence? Probably the best thing would be to post up a couple of samples so you can see what I mean, but I'm in the middle of a mammoth render at the moment so it might not be today. Has anyone been down this road before and come to any conclusions? The footage was DV (Canon XL1) and, to be brutally honest, isn't perfect as it is so it's whether it won't really make a difference if the footage isn't perfect anyway or whether that would be one degredation too many.
Any opinions (or alternatives) would be really appreciated.
TIA,
Jay.
Anyway, for whatever reason the best thing for getting a post house where I am to take my footage in is to give them an image sequence. They usually take in tga sequences but can also take jpg sequences. I'd be outputting these images from Adobe After Effects. Now I've checked both tgas and jpegs (at maximum quality) and there is a massive difference in filesize. My short as a tga sequence will be over 20 gigs which means a lot of burning onto dvds and a far longer time for them taking it in (they're doing me a favour). A jpeg sequence should be just over 4 gigs and so would fit on 1 dvd which would be a lot handier for both me and them. The short is running at almost 14 minutes.
The issue, of course, is loss of quality. Looking at both tgas and jpegs there is an ever so slight difference. The tgas seem to be completely lossless. The jpegs look fine (to me) but aren't exactly the same. You have place one image on top of the other and zoom right into the pixels to see it but there is a difference. It doesn't seem to be noticeable when moving but maybe my eyes aren't as tuned to picking things like that up.
I suppose I'm just wondering if people reckon I'd get away with a jpeg sequence? Probably the best thing would be to post up a couple of samples so you can see what I mean, but I'm in the middle of a mammoth render at the moment so it might not be today. Has anyone been down this road before and come to any conclusions? The footage was DV (Canon XL1) and, to be brutally honest, isn't perfect as it is so it's whether it won't really make a difference if the footage isn't perfect anyway or whether that would be one degredation too many.
Any opinions (or alternatives) would be really appreciated.
TIA,
Jay.