Perrone Ford |
December 9th, 2009 11:38 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Parker
(Post 1458208)
Thanks for the clarification, even if it's a bit contradictory. I did not mean to imply that everyone has ridiculous amounts of trouble with .mov files in Windows. I only said I did.
|
However, you took your lone experience and extrapolated it as a cure-all for the OP. Regardless of whether that is a viable solution or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Parker
(Post 1458208)
However, you completely confuse any point you're trying to make by first claiming mpeg2 is (not "can be") a "hugely lossy codec", then pointing out that's what could actually be inside a mov file.
|
Mpeg2, by it's nature is lossy. At common bit rates available in most NLEs it is HUGELY lossy. Not can be, *IS*. I did not point out that Mpeg2 could be inside a .mov container. I said that an MOV container could house lossless (or nearly lossless) codecs. Mpeg2 is not one of them. Uncompressed is, Cineform is, DNxHD is, JP2K is, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Parker
(Post 1458208)
I stand by my advice. Why screw around with mov containers when it isn't necessary? The friend should be able to render a perfectly good mpg file, most of which won't even be re-rendered and thus will be original quality (assuming he knows what he's doing). There's no advantage at all to using a container like .mov , or the Windows container .avi.
|
Why screw around with mov containers? Because that container currently is the most universal one with the best video codecs available. Period. Rendering an mpg regardless of container WILL be lossy. Not can, WILL. Why fool around with losing quality when its' totally unnecessary?
And how do you know what will or won't be re-rendered? This is unknowable without knowing what the native format of the video is. The camera that was used for the shoot was never mentioned.
|