| centennial codec?
• | | | |
 | centennial codec?
by NSHEX1 on Dec 8, 2007 at 6:20:09 pm |
Hi,
i have been bugging this forum with lots of questions lately, but this is really important.
in a short while i am starting to digitize 1000's of mixed tapes, anything from umatic thru digibeta to hdv.
i will have lots of storage, on lto4 (800gb per tape)
and i want to choose one or two codecs to digitize to, and the important bit is this;
this material will have to evolve for the next 50-100 years and maintain accessibility. every so and so years, the lto tapes will be moved to a current medium, and the capture files will be updated to a current codec.
i am seeking some good advice on choosing the correct codec (or codecs) to capture to.
so far, this is the information i have;
-it will be digitized in FCP, so i can take the QT files, and not OMF or MXF (grate format, but proprietary and not very prevalent out side of pro video).
-i was thinking on DVCpro and DVCproHD for the HDV, as i think HDV is very compressed and will not last long (as a standard).
-what about prores 422? i hardly know anything about it.
- 10 bit uncompressed is a bit too much in terms of quality vs. space. this is corporate video and no one will know the difference from DVCpro and 1:1.
- is there a thing such as codec-less?
so, if someone thinks he (or she :)) knows which is the codec of choice, please, please let me know. i have been researching for weeks now, and just cant find a definitive solution.
awaiting anxiously,
Edo
| | | | |
• | | | |  | Re: centennial codec?
by Cale Mooth on Dec 10, 2007 at 10:30:16 pm |
Based on your situation I would consider a lossless codec if you have the space. If you plan on switching media and reencoding this footage every several years, you're going to start losing information after the very first transfer using any lossy codec. 50-100 years from now, depending on how many times you've transferred and recompressed your footage, you may end up with something that looks rather terrible. If you have the space, consider going uncompressed. We know how often formats and codecs come and go over just a few years.
| | | | |
• | | | | | Re: centennial codec?
by NSHEX1 on Dec 11, 2007 at 8:08:34 am |
Hi Cale, thanks for the answer.
so now i have to ask you, when you say uncompressed, what would you recommend? i will use lto4 tapes, which are 800GB100$ each.
would 8bit uncompressed pal (70.1 GB Hr) give a good enough quality?
would 10bit give a much better result? or is it over kill?
would you mind suggesting me a workflow for capturing (i.e. capture via SDI at uncompressed 8bit)? what should be done about the hdv? downconverting to sd and capture uncomp.8bit?
does capturing uncom.8bit means that the QT file is the most 'accessible'? (i probably dont know how to call it, when aside from the container '.mov' the raw data is codec-less? or is it called SMPTE601? is there a format whcich is 'pure video'?)
but you understand what i am after? .mov (thats why avid is out of the question. who knows where MXF will be in 50 years)files that could be opened in 25-50 years with the minimum loss, and upgraded as needed with again, as little loss as possible (we even considered printing to film, but i fear film will be gone in 50 years, and re-telecine is a pain).
cost is not an issue. it is quality and access i am after.
Thanks again
Edo
| | | | |
• | | | | | Re: centennial codec?
by Cale Mooth on Dec 31, 2007 at 4:03:25 pm |
Hey Edo,
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. Here are a few quick links that tout 10 bit over 8 bit:
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/basic_codec_jordan.html
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=67934
http://www.powerthinkinginc.com/New%20Pages/article8.html
Basically, they're saying you can store more color information and thus, a better quality picture using 10 bit. But it all depends on your source. If you're archiving nasty old video off something like VHS, 8 bit will be more than adequate.
If you have HD footage and are interested in preserving quality, I wouldn't downconvert it to SD. If we're lucky, we should see the end of SD on a professional level in the next 10 years.
If you decide to save .mov files(or any other format/continer), as time goes on, you just need to make sure that the current hardware and software can continue to read those files. If for some reason FCP/Apple/QuickTime decide to disappear from existence, be prepared to convert your archive into something else readable by one of the current standards of that time period. Either that or keep some of those old systems/software around that can read your archive. Make that part of the archiving process as well.
With technology changing so quickly, adapting your archive to new technology may be something that has to happen in 15 to 25 years. In the end, I would try to make your setup as versatile as you can and I think starting with an uncompressed source is your best bet in terms of lasting quality.
| | | | |
• | | | |  | log!
by Bob Cole on Mar 22, 2008 at 1:54:11 am |
The other part of the equation is logging.
Here's what happens to any plan after at most 40 years: even if it is on the last-previous format in perfect uncompressed, digital condition, nobody will want to bother with the hassle of keeping on converting it to the latest format -- UNLESS you have made it so easy to use that people continue to see value in it. That means a high-quality log of the footage, with verbal descriptions and keywords, and still frames that give a quick-and-easy reference to each file and timecode.
Perhaps you already know all of this, and you work in an archive, but if not you should visit, for example, the (U.S.) National Archive's Motion Picture Branch, and see what they do.
After you've made your personal fade-out, the media itself is not going to be maintained, unless it is easily accessible.
MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650
| | | | |
• | | | |
Bob,
i wouldn't dream otherwise. logging is the cornerstone of any archive.
as a solution i found MDCL (mac digital clip library, by imagine products).
i have some experience with their PC app., TEPX, but if you have any suggestions for a good logger, i am always eager to learn.
The cup is half full and my shirt is half wet
| | | | |
• | | | | | Re: log!
by Bob Cole on Mar 23, 2008 at 1:49:58 pm |
[Edo Medicks] "i found MDCL (mac digital clip library, by imagine products).
i have some experience with their PC app., TEPX"
I have used Imagine's products in the past, and thought very highly of them. I guess one key criterion for proprietary logging software is the ability to export data in a common data format, so that your data will survive, even if their software for whatever reason doesn't. (I'm an ex-"discreet edit*" user so EOL is not an abstract concept here.)
Thanks for the tip about MDCL.
Bob C
MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650
| | | | |
| |
|
Reply
Like
