
kickass331 wrote:vegas has a more compatible and industry standard professional H.264 Codec built in. If you have H.264 Professional encoder, such as CoreAVC on your PC, Vegas will detect it. Use that at level 4.2 at your projects settings with correct framerate and progressive scan. 3mbps should be optimal.
Nya-chan Production wrote:kickass331 wrote:vegas has a more compatible and industry standard professional H.264 Codec built in. If you have H.264 Professional encoder, such as CoreAVC on your PC, Vegas will detect it. Use that at level 4.2 at your projects settings with correct framerate and progressive scan. 3mbps should be optimal.
So in one sentence Vegas has a codec built in and in the other you need professional encoder installed?
Does not compute.
Also, the internal encoder in Vegas, while not fail completely, can never be up to date and stuff. AND 3mbps is ridiculously large when you don't even know what is the guy's frame size, in 480p 1500kbps is usually totally enough unless it's some super-high-speed action.
Nya-chan Production wrote:Yeah, and I again ask - why encode straight when you can render and then encode and get better result? No problem with banding at all, unless you fuck up majorly. All that you need is more time |:
I am talking about Pro all the time.
Why do you use flac, btw? Nothing against it, but why bother with flac and not feed it wav directly?
kickass331 wrote:it's called efficiency. WAV takes up more space than flac or wavpack, Lossless takes up more space than MPEG-2, encoding is about compression.
Nya-chan Production wrote:kickass331 wrote:it's called efficiency. WAV takes up more space than flac or wavpack, Lossless takes up more space than MPEG-2, encoding is about compression.
(the rest is just you boasting, so I omitted it)
Not that much and you can lose quality or make mistakes in that process. Also saying someone cares about space with today's prices of HDDs (most of editors I know have TBs of space) is nonsense.
kickass331 wrote:Nya-chan Production wrote:kickass331 wrote:it's called efficiency. WAV takes up more space than flac or wavpack, Lossless takes up more space than MPEG-2, encoding is about compression.
(the rest is just you boasting, so I omitted it)
Not that much and you can lose quality or make mistakes in that process. Also saying someone cares about space with today's prices of HDDs (most of editors I know have TBs of space) is nonsense.
lose quality? FLAC is Lossless, PCM is Lossless, FLAC Compression levels are for optimizing in silence and low waveform amplitude. PCM is not an Adaptive encoder, it is linear. Also, I generally prefer FLAC because it sounds cooler and is open source. And so what if the space you save is negligible, Whenever I archive material, I put it in non-solid ultra inefficient 7-zip containers that take 10 times longer to open and only open with 7-zip. Why? Because of distribution purposes. Sure, physical media is rarely limited, but cloud and infastructure media relies on efficiency. If youtube streamed lagarith, do you think millions of people would go there every day? I think not, for client/ server bandwidth, storage, decoding, upload time, and in addition transcoding the lossy uploads into futile lossless streaming videos. The information age is defined by the amount of data complexity you can preserve. Codecs were designed with the intention of efficiency as the very top most priority. this applies as well in commercial industries such as broadcast television, in fact interlacing was developed for efficiency, and interlacing is one of the most discussed topics on AV forums universally. That's my bowl of nachos.
Nya-chan Production wrote:No one was talking about blu rays in the first place. Most of the people still work with DVDs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests