Quick Question

B

BennyWhiskers

Active member
I'm going to be editing some footage shot from GH13's in After Effects CS5 and I was wondering what format is better for graphics? AVCHD or JPEG? Thanks.
 
Well, depends of the setting you´re using in your GH13, what format have better specs or Mbps, the Mpeg codec for me is more robust and less noise or mud problems, even have a option to shoot at 4:2:2.

Cheers
 
A little rant here, I don't know why people on this forum insist in working in codecs that are really only for original capture. I mean, AVCHD, MPEG, JPEG, it's all pretty much crap and is only used for capture on quasi-professional "prosumer" cameras or for final delivery. You should NOT work in these codecs when round-tripping graphics in whatever programs you use. Use high resolution codecs like Apple ProRes or Quicktime Animation or TIFF sequences, but for God's sake, stop using heavily compressed codecs like the aforementioned ones.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
A little rant here, I don't know why people on this forum insist in working in codecs that are really only for original capture. I mean, AVCHD, MPEG, JPEG, it's all pretty much crap and is only used for capture on quasi-professional "prosumer" cameras or for final delivery. You should NOT work in these codecs when round-tripping graphics in whatever programs you use. Use high resolution codecs like Apple ProRes or Quicktime Animation or TIFF sequences, but for God's sake, stop using heavily compressed codecs like the aforementioned ones.
Click to expand...

Ok, i´m agree with your biases here, but i think we´re talking about the codec that came straight from the camera, of course is no a professional Camera but is what he got; of course you can convert to Quicktime is you prefer, but with this kind of codecs in AFX C5 is really irrelevant cause you can read all those native. If you need to share your workflow with others then will be good idea give your footage with a robust codec as Quicktime, you can find that sometimes AVCHD is not used in many postproducton workflows.

Now if you have access to a NanoFlash, a Ninja Atomos or a Kipro for hires recording using Quicktime ProRes without compression will be preferred, but not for a video coming from a Lumix with the already compressed output.

Cheers
 
Even when we work with H264 footage from Canon dSLR's we still convert it all over the ProRes. Generally, MPEG4/H264 codec are pretty processor intensive and are heavily compressed. Just because you capture in AVCHD doesn't mean you have to work & finish in it.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
Even when we work with H264 footage from Canon dSLR's we still convert it all over the ProRes. Generally, MPEG4/H264 codec are pretty processor intensive and are heavily compressed. Just because you capture in AVCHD doesn't mean you have to work & finish in it.
Click to expand...

Same here.

Josh
 
Sorry for the delay.

I'm planning on converting to apple pro-res 422 and it will AVCHD Format. Is there really a difference between that and jpeg?

The mbps is around 33 and 1920x1080 resolution.
 
+1 for image sequences. Stick with Targa's (.tga), Tiff (.tif) or even .PNG.

Quicktime Animation codec at 100% quality is basically uncompressed. It's excellent for archiving footage, but file sizes are pretty huge. The Apple Pro-Res codec works well, even on the PC side for Premier editing or After Effects work.
 
KurtF said:
+1 for image sequences. Stick with Targa's (.tga), Tiff (.tif) or even .PNG.

Quicktime Animation codec at 100% quality is basically uncompressed. It's excellent for archiving footage, but file sizes are pretty huge. The Apple Pro-Res codec works well, even on the PC side for Premier editing or After Effects work.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top