AVI vs WMV

S

STiVo

Member
I rendered a file for someone to do some final color correction for me and they returned the file to me as a wmv for me to make final edits and render. Is there a way for me to check and make sure that I have the same quality video as I gave him and did not undergo some degrading compression? Can someone help me in this area?

I thank-you in advance.
 
Well, most likely it is more compressed then the original AVI.

Does it look worse? That is the easiest way to tell. Have them send you and AVI and you will be better off.
 
I will second william on that one. Its surely better to work with the avi. Also depends on what sort of compression was used on the avi. Cinepak, Indeo etc. Tere are quite soe options out there. Also wmv will always soften the video a wee bit than the orginal. It gives a smoother look, as opposed to the sharp and contrasty look of Mpeg2 etc. Also wmv's sometimes behave funnily on the timeline. I guess its because wmv is primarily a web distribution format.
 
In my opinion the WMV is the best final product for web distribution, but if you are still planning more editing and rendering, I certainly would recommend you get the AVI file and use that to edit, then render to the WMV (if web usage) in the end. WMV is very similar to AVI except that it has much more compression. WMV is a super finished product because you do not seem to lose much quality at all even though the file is greatly compressed. J
 
The orginal question was wether to edit from a wmv. Which is not advisable. Ofcourse he probably knows its best to render to wmv for the web. I already menioned it. Yes. WMV LOOKs super in its finished state. It doesnt hold good for editing. Ive tried editing wmvs and they hiccup a lot on the timeline. They look greta to the perceptible view. Thats the illusion in compression. But its only like an illusion. Similar to how Mpeg uses Intra and Bidirectional frames to create the illusion of full frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top