I just finished editing a 10 minute short film and wanted to output in a quicktime movie file that I could archive in a back-up location so that I know my final project is secure. What is the best type of file for this purpose? I feel it should be uncompressed but a 30gb file seems over the top for such a short film, it needs to be something I can hold onto on my hardrives without having to delete it to save space.
Source Format: DVCPro HD 720 p60
With the cost of storage so cheap, why not export out a 30gb uncompressed archive version?
Web Video Melbourne
Whats a good format to do this? I tried using 'animation' in the quicktime movie format but the final version wouldn't playback without skipping (too big of a file?) Compressor has quicktime uncompressed 8 bit and 10 bit, but I dont really know the difference between those..
Uncompressed 8-bit would be ok, but 10 bit has a greater color depth I believe. If you edited it at 8 bits though, I don't think archiving it at 10 bit magically adds those extra 2 bits of color data, since it's not there in the original. I could be wrong on that though as it's a very confusing subject.
So if you captured and edited at 10 bit, then archive at 10. If you captured and edited at 8, archive at 8.
I've had arguments with people about this subject. We shoot mostly SD using DVCPro50 (which is an 8-bit format) and have had engineers tell me that capturing and editing at 10-bit is pointless (since the source is 8). But others claim that capture hardware converts the image from 8-bit to 10-bit upon capture. I've never gotten a straight answer from the hardware people when I've asked them directly. It seems a little suspect to me that additional color information could be added to my original source digital file upon capture thru SDI.
Also..I found this on an Apple Final Cut Forum post:
10-bit codecs use an extra 2 bits of data per channel. If you're working uncompressed, then it's roughly a 20% increase in filesize. But you get 4 times as many levels of color for each color channel --and this is a huge benefit while you're editing and mastering. But trancoding an 8-bit project to 10-bit file doesn't result in any quality gain, just a larger file-size.
Again..that poster could've been wrong on that forum too.
Another analogy is if you record original audio at 16 bit 48khz. Then take that file into an audio editing program and resample it to 24bit 96khz....the audio program is digitally upsampling your original data. I've had people argue that the file is now higher quality. Most engineers I know say the original file is the highest quality file you can have, and that any processed copy, even if it's upsampled, will be slightly inferior to the original. The best analogy for me is saying if you take an uncompressed SD file and uprez it to uncompressed HD, it increases quality. Well we all know that is NOT true, and it's basically the same thing as all of the above.
On no...I've probably started a big argument with all this!
And I agree with the other poster, 30GB is nothing these days. I think you can get thumb drives and flash drives that will hold that much.
Magnetic Image, Inc.
[David Benassi] "Source Format: DVCPro HD 720 p60"
That's what you archive it at. No point in doing it any other way. No point in uncompressed as you'll just waste space. You could also try Apple ProRes HQ as an alternative
If in the future you want to work with it and edit or comp with it, then at that time you could transcode it to uncompressed 10bit if necessary.
Two years from now, spam will be solved. - Bill Gates, World Economic Forum 2004