If you plan to edit your output video or use it in another project, you should not use a lossless compression. You'll just get an enormous unwieldly file, as you've seen.
Rather, output using Share/Computer/MPEG using the 1440x1080 MPEG output. (1440x1080 and 1920x1080 produce exactly the same size file.)
The 1440x1080 output file will load perfectly into a Premiere Elements project set up for HDV.
Thank you Steve
so I will use a loosless format,
I intend to make a movie that can be seen also at a cinema screen that is why I am looking for the highest resolution offerred by the raw material (1920 x 1080, 25 fps),
if I use the loosless format (AVI/Quick Time - with no compression), then I get the huge file,
but my concern is that these file - althoug so huge - has the 720 x 480 resolution and I do not know, whether I have the possibility to further render this 720 x 480 (after edition) to go back to the 1920 x 1080 resulution without loosing some part of the information.
I was trying to find out the answer at Google, but could not. Since I am a newcomer to the editing world, I would like to know much more about this issue.
1 person found this helpful
When Exporting/Sharing to Intermediate files, for later editing, or editing in other programs, I like these two lossless CODEC's, Lagarith Lossless, or UT Lossless. This ARTICLE goes into more detail.
The reason that you got the 720 x 480 Frame Size is that the DV CODEC, which creates files for DVD-Video.
DO NOT USE A LOSSLESS CODEC WHEN YOU OUTPUT YOUR FILE, MICHAL!
There is no value in doing so. You will not get a higher quality video. You will only get a larger video.
Please follow my instructions and you will get an excellent, high-definition video file that can also be used in another high-definition video project.
I disagree here. Exporting/Sharing to a heavily-compressed MPEG CODEC will do zero for maintaining quality. When one re-edits, and Exports/Shares to any compressed CODEC, the quality will suffer once again. It is just like a FAX of a FAX.
Yes, lossless CODEC's do produce larger files, but smaller than Uncompressed. One can Exprot/Share to them in multi-generational versions, with zero loss in quality.
If one does not care about quality, then a heavily-compressed CODEC will yield smaller files - but only if one does not care about quality.
Good point, Bill. But outputting to an uncompressed file can't ADD TO the quality of video file.
So, since the original video file from the camcorder was already compressed in the first place, and you can't get a better file than the original, most of the time outputting an uncompressed file simply results in a file that's so huge most PCs can play it and most PC-based video editors (including Premiere Elements) can't edit them -- and that's counter-productive.
In other words, starting with a compressed file (AVCHD for instance) and then outputting a compressed file (BluRay) gives you a file that's easy for any computer or BluRay player to play and yet is virtually identical to the original.
But outputting to an uncompressed file can't ADD TO the quality of video file.
You are absolutely correct here.
Though for a different situation, the closest that one can come to "adding to" a Clip, would be with an app. like Red Giant's Magic Bullet Instant HD, when going from SD to HD. Even then, and with some pretty sophisticated algorithms, the difference can be noticeable, and off-putting. Some users can accept that up-rezzing, but many cannot.
As the material has already been heavily compressed to start with, there is no way to get back to the original signal, before the camera compressed it for its output file - there is no RAW version, lurking somewhere.
Where I have a problem, is with compressing that material again, costing what quality exists in the already compressed version.
I do agree that using a Lossless CODEC WILL create larger files. They are compressed, but the quality IS maintained. That compression is just far less, than if one re-compresses with some form of MPEG.
If file size IS an issue, and quality is not a concern, then re-compressing is certainly viable. For me, the file size is not an issue, but maintaining ultimate quality (however good that might be to start), certainly is. I Export/Share to create files, that will go into other programs, such as After Effects, then Export a file from AE, to come back into Premiere. If I am using PrPro, and the version of AE in my suite, I just use Adobe Dynamic Link (ADL), but with PrE, there is no ADL to other Adobe programs, even if one has them installed, so intermediate files are necessary. For those, I use Lagarith, or UT, for each direction.
It is the same, if I edit a Project, and then need to hand that footage off to another editor, to do more work with it. The only drawback is that the other editor will need the proper CODEC, say Lagarith, or UT installed, but both are free, and easy to install. I have also never encountered any problem, or conflict, when using either. They have always worked flawlessly on all of my systems, with all of my various editing programs - though I have probably just cursed myself with that statement...
I think that we mostly agree on all points.
Thank you Bill and Steve for your help!
You are most welcome.
There are many considerations, when doing a Share/Export. If one plans on editing, and then Sharing/Exporting again, I recommend one of the lossless CODEC's, but at the expense of large file sizes.
Good luck, and happy editing.