As far as long term viability of video content, I have found nothing that gives me 10+ yr plus security. Every codec I have used for mastering in my career has been phased out or replaced. The only codec that seems to stand the test so far is Animation but it's only 8bit. Right now I'm using Apple ProRes, but that could change next month and then who knows if you can still read those files when Windows 11 or Apple Pole Cat come out in the future.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Adam Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Had some advice from media projection guys when dealing with 16Gb+ video > files. Even if you've created an H264 with decent quailty out of something > like AE, it's worth trying to re-exporting out of QT Pro as the temporal > compression is much better with the same quality. > > Didn't compare with AME though. > > I've got the export setting somewhere I'll try & fish them out. > > Adam. > > > --------------------- > Freelance Softimage Generalist > 07956 976 245 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamseeleyuk<http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=21162305> > https://vimeo.com/adamseeley <https://vimeo.com/album/2280465> > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]" <[email protected]> > *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, 21 March 2013, 15:14 > *Subject:* RE: Rendering to video and formats > > Peter, > > Thanks. This is useful information. Had not considered the anti-aliasing > yet so that’s good to know. > > I’m rendering 960x540 for pre-viz and test runs, but had not decided on > what the best format was for finished work. I’ll have to work with the > renders some more to see what kind of speed I can get out of 1920x1080. > There’s also the matter of storage. Are finding the full HD renders to > take an extraordinary amount of hard disk space? > > -- > Joey Ponthieux > LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) > Mymic Technical Services > NASA Langley Research Center > __________________________________________________ > Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not > represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *[email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:38 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Rendering to video and formats > > Hi Joey I won’t comment too much about frame-rates, other than saying I’m > lucky we have 24p / 25p / 50i in Europe – North American frame rates are > such a mess. > > For resolution, 1920by1080 (=full HD) is really the defacto standard. It > is quite effective as a universal master format, covering pretty much > anything broadcast, as well as 35mm film and BlueRay transfer. > If you don’t need 2k or up, you can’t go wrong with 1920x1080 – and it has > beautiful square pixels. > I haven’t done standard definition in a decade now – but at the time, I > always preferred rendering/compositing at 768x576 square pixels PAL, and > converting to 720x576 non square pixels after finishing. > > Yes, at first full HD can be quite expensive for rendering compared to > standard definition at ~6 times the amount of pixels – but you can > compensate some in the sampling settings: > Standard definition, with non square pixels and interlacing is quite > problematic for small details, and requires decent sampling – eg. in mental > ray terms min1 max3 was standard for me – and sometimes 2 / 3 or double res > rendering. > > I find that full HD / progressive frames alleviated the sampling > requirements – and for me standard sampling is now min 0 max 2 contrast > 0.05 mitchell 4 or gauss 3 – the need for double res never occurred for me > (in software rendering), very occasionally 1.5 times the res. On the > opposite, I find that sometimes you can get away with lower sampling as > well: –1 / 2 / 0.075 for example – something that would look quite bad on > SD / interlaced. > > This, together with inevitable progress in hardware, makes that I don’t > find full HD rendering today any slower than rendering SD was in the past. > IMO, longer rendertimes today come from higher expectations put on content. > > Your mileage may vary – and 1280x720 (=HD ready) may be adequate – it is a > big improvement over SD – but personally, I would find it a shame not to go > full HD anno 2013. > > For playback – depends on the situation. > When doing CGI, I’m used to playing less than a minute at a time - from a > local non raid disk or from a server – playback software like RV or > Framecycler handles this very well, and flipbook is no slouch either. > For more critical situations, such as monitored playback, and editing with > a client - get a turnkey NLE station, with decicated graphics, video I/O > and raid array and most importantly software that offers guaranteed > performance at full HD (oh how I liked flame and DSHD way back when... ) > > If you put consumer software on a regular PC, don’t expect the performance > of a high end NLE station – even if things have certainly come a long way. > > Just my 2 cent and random thoughts. > > > *From:* Byron Nash <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:16 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Rendering to video and formats > > Most of the stuff we work with on the commercial side is 1920x1080 - > 23.976fps because that is the resolution and frame rate most commercials > are shot with. On rare occasions we work in 29.97 and 1280x720. Youtube and > Vimeo support 1920x1080 these days so I just prefer to go full raster even > if the target is web use. > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Joey, > Most of my stuff ends up in broadcast. > I use 1280 x 1080 1.5 pixel aspect ratio and 1.7778 picture aspect ratio > (16x9) > I use this because it conforms to DVCPRO 100 specs. > I use After Effects to composite my animation layers so I can > dial up the final output format there, depending on what edit system is > being used for the final edit. > > I also stick to 29.97 unless strobing motion is an issue. If it is an > issue, then I render > 60fps and deal with either the motion blur or field interlacing in After > Effects. > > I hope this helps. > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] < > [email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Its been several years since I’ve had to deal with this so I thought I > would ask what the current practice is for most folks now that HD has > really taken hold. > > For the record I have experience with standard def video going back to 1 > inch type C and U-matic almost 30 years ago. In recent time we had a fairly > decent workflow rendering to D1/DV resolution and compositing to DV QT/AVI > for efficient video output. > > However, I’m not sure what the standard practice is today regarding a > similar workflow with HD. Further I’m finding the high end 1080 formats to > be quite expensive regarding render time, disk capacity, and playback > efficiency. > > So the questions I have are: > > 1. What is the most common rendering resolution you use for 3D? > > 2. What video format/hertz are you targeting/using? > > 3. What is the best or most efficient HD format for > compositing/rendering straight to a video playback file which can then be > read into a non-linear editor, in my case Premiere Pro or Final Cut? > > In general I’m looking for a silver bullet approach similar to the old: > 720x480->QuicktimeDV->Final Cut approach. (720x480->MS DV AVI->Premiere > Pro for the Adobe folks). > > I expect everyone is using 16:9 today and 4:3 is obsolete so how does this > translate to a modern HD format and for that matter which HD format. > > I realize all of this today is dependent on whether your focused on 720 > or 1080 and may also be dependent upon the broadcast production equipment > you are using. What I’m mostly interested in is what is the most efficient > render format to quickly get me to a native non-linear editing file and > maintain long term viability. > > I’m also interested in anyone thoughts regarding hertz as well. As an OLD > video guy, I’m inclined to gravitate towards the 30/29.97 fps. But frankly > don’t have a clue what the accepted standard is these days in HD since at > one time 60p was the holy grail. > > I’m not currently limited to a specific video hardware platform as we have > no specific dedicated broadcast equipment. Everything is delivered via > multimedia at the moment, however, there may come a time when editing in a > dedicated editing suite may become necessary. > > Thanks > > -- > Joey Ponthieux > LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) > Mymic Technical Services > NASA Langley Research Center > __________________________________________________ > Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not > represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. > > > > -- > Best Regards, > * Stephen P. Davidson** > **(954) 552-7956** > * [email protected] > *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* > > - Arthur C. Clarke > <http://www.3danimationmagic.com/> > <http://www.3danimationmagic.com/> > > >
