Skip navigation
lasvideo
lasvideo
Currently Being Moderated

Comparing Master Codecs. UT and DNxHD

Jul 26, 2012 10:05 AM

Now that I'm in PC land I decided to explore alternative codecs. I was interested to see variances in render times and file size.

 

I took the "Dancin Footloose" project and exported it first as UT (AVI) then DNxHD (QT). They took about the same time to export (6:30 for an effects heavy 3:09 timeline). The UT file was 7GB and the DNxHD was 3GB. Close inspection revealed no discernable difference.

 

Somehow I thought getting away from Quicktime wrapped codecs would speed things up. This was not the case in this test.

577 Views   3 Replies   Latest reply: lasvideo, Jul 27, 2012 9:25 AM
 
Replies
  • UlfLaursen
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. UlfLaursen,
    Jul 26, 2012 8:54 PM   in reply to lasvideo
    Report

    I did some test to compare UT to Lagarith, and I don't recall the exact figures, but UT was signifigant faster. I use the UT for intermediate files.

     

    /Ulf

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • joe bloe premiere
    2,336 posts
    Dec 6, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. joe bloe premiere,
    Jul 27, 2012 8:52 AM   in reply to lasvideo
    Report

    When I first started using the DNxHD codec, the first thing I did was the same as you.

    I made a direct comparison with the original composite, an uncompressed image

    sequence, and a UT codec .avi (which I regularly use as a final master archive format).

     

    Despite the fact that the DNxHD codec is classified as 'lossy', I have found that

    in close inspection the 'loss' is not discernable to the eye.. and I use DNxHD

    as a cross-platform master format with collaborating mac users.

     

    The only disadvantage working with DNxHD in Premiere is the 32 bit QT pipeline,

    but I'm sold on the quality of the exports I have made from CS5.0.3.

     

    As for comparison of export times... I never bothered.

    The quality of the final product is my only concern, and with final master exports

    happening  at the end of a project, the time required for clean encodes is not an issue...

    nor is the size of the resulting file.

     

    Cheers, and welcome to WinWorld!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • lasvideo
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. lasvideo,
    Jul 27, 2012 9:25 AM   in reply to joe bloe premiere
    Report

    Thanks Joe. You make some excellant points. And in light of the fact there just are no good alternatives at this point, I may just continues using DNxHD as well.  The time to export masters for long form projects might still be an issue for clients at the end of session, but until there is a good alternative I will just have to deal with that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points