Better Video Format: MOV or MP4

I'd just buy more drives/ If you downconvert and discard your original HD media you save some bit of drive space but you can never get your HD back. And the conversion process takes time. What's the actual gain in storage space versus the time and convenience of having your HD compared against the cost of a couple of 3T drives?

We shoot mostly 720 because that's mostly what we need. We rarely shoot 1080 but, when we do, we do it deliberately so we keep the media because we know why we need it. We can pan it or zoom it at 100% If it gets scaled down to fit our 720 projects, we just let FCPX do the render for us and it looks great.

You're shooting 1080 for a reason, presumably. Stick with the workflow and set up your storage system to handle it.

MP4 is highly compressed but FCPX likes it. Sometimes. Usually prefers the H.264 codec. MP4 is just a wrapper for tons of different codecs used in HD cameras and many, like Sony and Canon (I think) must be post-processed before FCPX can see them.

FCPX will be far happier if you feed it uncompressed formats like ProRes422 but if storage space is your only factor, use your favorite compressor and your favorite codec. Each will have tradeoffs. Highly compressed, lossy, delivery-style formats, like H.264, make tremendous comprises to handle complex imagery and motion and the audio gets compressed, too. When they are displayed, the unpacking tends to hide some of this stuff. You may not like what happens when the compression is unpacked for editing .

Rex Ross wrote:

2. Is there any reason to believe the Compressor would do a better job than MacVideo Converter Pro?

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks

I can't comment about "MacVideo Converter Pro because I don't use it and don't know anyone who has.

Compressor is a professional compression application. In other words, it has been designed with the idea that it should meet the standards of those who work with multi-media for a living. It is widely used by editors and serious hobbyists. It uses several proprietary codecs that were developed by Apple, such as the Pro Res family, for transacting. It scales video both up and down with very good results, It can also retime video to different frame rates and is a good standards converter.

There is more on Compressor and its development here andhere.

Russ

If you're media is 1080 and you want to edit it in 720, there is no reason to down convert. It's better to edit in 720, leaving yours;f the option to reframe without degrading the image.

Tom Wolsky wrote:

If you're media is 1080 and you want to edit it in 720, there is no reason to down convert. It's better to edit in 720, leaving yours;f the option to reframe without degrading the image.

Yeah. That's what I said.

Here's a new converto-thingy:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/07/09/sneak-peek-divergent-medias-editready-tran scoder-updated-to-v1-3/

For FCP, QuickTime is better. Make sure the audio is uncompressed Linear PCM 48K. MPEG-4 works, but it's pretty sucky.

Rex Ross wrote:

Thanks. That confirms my tests. When I examine the properties I see the bit rate is much higher for Quicktime than MP4.

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

What Tom was saying is that Final Cut prefers working with QuickTime movie files . However, if played back on Vimeo or on your computer, I seriously doubt you (or I) could tell the difference if the video were in a MOV or MP4 container –that is assuming the same bit rate.

The reason you got a lower bit rate with MPEG4 settings is that the presets are lower. But using Compressor (or some other compression application) you don't need to accept the presets that you are presented with. Those MPEG 4 bit rates can be cranked up to be quite high – just as MOV's can be lowered.

Russ