Get extra disk space and copy the files for backup. No quality loss, ready for re-edit, etcetera.
I agree with Harm. Video editing requires lots of hard drive space. Never work around that, always get more if you need it.
Also, never delete your original media. Archive it is some fashion.
For your requested purpose, Lagarith is about the best option. It's a free codec, will not degrade the image at all, and works fine inside of Premiere. It'll create MUCH bigger files, but that get's resolved with the first item in my list.
1 person found this helpful
I believe his question is what to export the EDITED video to, correct?
So copying and storing the source files isn't the problem here.
You want to export a big, high quality file of your completed edit - let's call this your Master.
For a Master you'll want to export to something that's as close as possible to the source file's
for AVCHD this would be MPEG4-AVC/ H.264
If you're not sure what you are doing yet in terms of customizing export settings, use one of the H.264 based export profiles for BluRay.
Depending on your system's resources this export may take some time. A sometimes faster way is exporting your Master
as a high bitrate MPEG2 but I highly suggest to learn about optimal settings to make sure your Master ends up in a high enough quality.
Hope this helps.
For a Master you'll want to export to something that's as close as possible to the source file's original codec. For AVCHD this would be MPEG4-AVC/ H.264
I just disagree with that in so many ways.
Care to enlighten us with more or are you just gonna let this mystery stick out?
yes kroycom, you understood my maybe not so well formulated sentences/question,apologise for my broken english too
But sure keeping the source file will always be the best,no quality loss but hey than id only need to move the whole files onto an storage device and my archive is done
The reason i am considering to keep only the Master / edited movie is that why not exporting it into one video file, if the quality loss is not too noticable (=accaptable) and at the same time making it easier to reuse for other people who might not be that skilled or use different NLEs?! If the filesize wold become much much biger than source for AVCHD, than id rather keep the source. Since my source is AVCHD i think H.264 by canon HF100 @17mbs i should use the same bitrate?
Oh another big advantage would be if only small parts of source video files are being used in a project, than exporting the edited video / master i would save the disk space for the not used footage
@jim, thanks for your latest reply, allthough its not very constructive / helpfull.
thanks and blessing
Sure, the Master is great to encode WMVs and other web friendly files from. If you keep the codec, bitrate and other settings as close as possible to the original (Source) files then you should get a very nice looking Master.
To latch on to Jim's suggestion about using Lagarith - he is right that Lagarith is a great codec (lossless etc.) but that's a different world and I don't think really necessary in your particular case. Lagaright is a fantastic way to get prestine Masters, particularly if you have a lot of animation and very high resolution footage. There's not a lot of point in using it for just making a nice Master from 17Mbps AVCHD files as those are very heavily compressed and already. Your Master can never look better than your source files, and a Lagarith Master would be gigantic and really overkill.
Try the BluRay presets, those should look good enough to pass
Lagaright is a fantastic way to get prestine Masters, particularly if you have a lot of animation and very high resolution footage. There's not a lot of point in using it for just making a nice Master from 17Mbps AVCHD files as those are very heavily compressed and already. Your Master can never look better than your source files, and a Lagarith Master would be gigantic and really overkill.
I disagree with everything except the fact that AVCHD in the camera is heavily compressed. The original from the camera is as good as the footage will ever get. If you want a quality archive, then you have to avoid re-compressing the footage any more than it already is. Archiving to a lossless codec is the only way to accomplish that. Lagarith is fast and it works. Buy more hard drive space if you need it. It's cheap.
Until someone figures out a reliable way to export to AVCHD without re-compressing unaltered frames, there just isn't any way to archive to AVCHD without introducing a generational loss. That loss may be acceptable for casual recordings, but IMHO, it's not acceptable for projects that will be delivered to clients either now or in the future. That's especially true if current or future deliveries will be on hi-def media like Blu-ray.
Care to enlighten us with more
Jeff covered it pretty well.
Mainconcept Pro HD for Premiere does smart rendering, but unfortunately it only works in CS3.
* Smart rendering is not available under current Premiere Pro CS4 releases, because of a defect in its plug-in API. Future updates of Premiere Pro CS4 and MPEG Pro HD 4 will solve this.
I cannot understand why Premiere does not have this feature. Sony Vegas and even Pinnacle Studio have smart rendering.