Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Preferred format for archive material

Preferred format for archive material

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Martin Weiss

Martin Weiss

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
56
Location
Switzerland/Norway/Germany
Website
weiss.no
I'm working at the National Library of Norway, where we are about to start scanning all our films in 2k/4k, and we are deciding on which delivery format to use for external clients. (We will of course archive everything in uncompressed full rez DPX glory, but need a lighter format for FTP transfer to external video productions.)

When you receive footage for inclusion in your SD/HD project, (for example archive material in a tv documentary; not intended for cinema exhibition):

1.) Which codec do you prefer: mpeg2, h264, DNxHD, XDCAM or Prores?

2.) At which minimum bit rate?

3.) Most footage is in 16:9. When receiving material in HD, do you prefer it in Standard 1080p (1920x1080) with black borders; or in 1440x1080?

Bonus question: is anyone using MXF files yet?


Thanks for your help!
 
Last edited:
ProRes 422 1920*1080p would be my preference, with letter/pillarbox for aspects other than 16:9. XDCAM HD422 50Mbps would be my second choice.

EDIT to add: It really depends on the use. After thinking about it some more, I would prefer to have a compressed 422 format for broadcast use and lighter workflows with the option of getting a 444 lossless/uncompressed version at 4K if that's what's needed.
 
Last edited:
None of those for me.. I mainly archive uncompressed masters, DPX or 16bit tiff or ANIMATION...
All my rushes will be R3D's

I may work in PRO RES every now and then... and store those as is. But only because I have worked in that format perhaps.

4k PRORESS 4444 would satisfy me into the future though, but only for my masters, not my rushes. I'f prefer they stay as is.
 
Hi444PP X264 10-bit Lossless.
Mathematically lossless versus uncompressed 4:4:4 10-bit, ~3:1 compression.

For above 4096x2304 or 16-bit, OpenEXR PIZ compression.
 
Agree with Mark

Prores 444 for me too.
 
Thanks for your replies so far, I really appreciate the input.

Just for clarification, the material will of course be stored uncompressed in full res DPX, but we also need to have a more lightweight format on hand for easier delivery. We need to strike a good balance between size, quality, openness and usability.
 
I'm surprised at all the votes for ProRes. What real practical benefit does ProRes offer over DNxHD for making HD quickimes? The only thing I see is that it is more proprietary and closed and has gamma issues...

DNxHD works great and as of this year also has a 444 version which is around 350 megabits I think.

But if you are also storing as DPX files, DNxHD175 should be plenty.

Or even a lower compression - you wouldn't believe how many things have gone to air from DNxHD115.

BTW, I know it's not as much of an accepted practice yet, but at some point instead of DPX files, you could use OpenEXR with PIZ or ZIP compression. It is an open standard and pretty great for lossless compression of original scans - similar file sizes as if you zipped each DPX file. You can also do B44a which is very slightly lossless but does even better. But yeah, probably stick with DPX as it's the standard right now?

Hi444PP X264 10-bit Lossless sounds interesting though! It sounds like it may take a while to compress though and not be easily-editable? I'll have to test that one - thanks Subhadip!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Going a bit off topic, but the problem with compressed footage for archival (even if mathematically lossless) is that when a bit gets damaged, you might lose a whole frame or more. Since we are working with a preservation perspective of 1.000 years, uncompressed is the only way forward.

I think the reason for the preferance for Prores is the (still) wide spread use of Final Cut. I'm slightly leaning towards offering both a Prores version for FCP folks, and DNxHD for the Avid users. Premiere users are probably fine with either?
 
And I'd add DPX to the list. I think that's far and away a better archival format than anything on the list, especially uncompressed.
 
Why not use the best distribution format available for your project? Like DCP 4k.
Has anyone seen compression artefacts due to Jpeg2000 compression?

Pat

Ps: up to now I use the DPX as archival format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top