This content has been marked as final. Show 7 replies
>Is there another format I could render to that would be viewable in Bridge and sufficiently high quality for subsequent usage in Encore
DV AVI is your best choice here.
Jim, thanks for replying so quickly.
Problem with DV AVI is that the file would be x10 as big. My 15 mins compressed to just under 600mb.
I take a lot of photographs so my Hard Drives are already under significant pressure!
Peter - Jim is right...based on your requirements, DV AVI is not only your best choice, but possibly the only one that fits your need at all.
For hard drive space, consider purchasing a larger drive. Prices are around $0.25 per GB right now for internal drives, and not much higher for external. Anyone who's been around this stuff for a while will tell you that is a STEAL. If you don't have enough hangars left in your machine for additional ones, consider replacing your secondary altogether with a larger single drive. A 750 GB drive would only run you a couple hundred bucks. If you need an external drive, consider an eSATA option to keep it fast, and an external RAID array (RAID 5 if you have the $$$) to keep it fast and safe.
I know you don't like hearing solutions that require plunking down a bunch of cash, but DV AVI really is your best bet, and if hard drive space is an issue, then you need to throw some money at it and solve the problem.
(oh, also...the DV AVI at 15 minutes would only be around 3,000 MB vs. the 600 MB of your other solution, meaning only 5x larger and not 10x larger)
I agree. If you need more space, get more hard drives. It's just a fact of life when working in video.
Thanks for the advice guys. Yes, I could replace 2 of my internal drives with, say, 300gb drives (they are most cost effective here in Thailand)but the video and my raw camera files will fill them in around 4 years! My 300 external back-up would also need replacing, giving me synchonisation problems along the line..
The DVD mpeg still isn't viewable in Bridge (funny because I can view other .mpeg but I think they are mpeg1). Bridge really has a long way to go in the video field compared with it's value in Photography.
So you are right, neither M2v or mpeg(2) meet my criteria. However, they would still make the production of the final DVD much faster because they are already rendered. I think maybe my simplest option would be to file them in such a way as to make identification easier - maybe creating jpgs of a frame and useing that as an identifier on a directory.
But what about rendering times? Does the step DVD quality medium to high make a big difference?
I understood 2 pass VBR was the best system - but this doubled my rendering time - would simply accepting Adobe's defaults 1pass, and medium quality - make a big difference?
Can I use the render command whilst doing my editing so that when it comes to final encoding some of teh work has been done?
Many thanks. Peter
>the video and my raw camera files will fill them in around 4 years!
In four years, hard drives will be even cheaper and bigger. Don't worry about it.
Jim - you are right - in 4 years we could all be dead and I will have had to replace the PC anyway!
Went through the final process of CD production - took around 45 minutes to prepare the files - so the benefits in computer time of useing AVI versus .mpeg worked out around 31 hours!