When choosing conversion quality settings, what is really happening to the files besides the size difference? are they all 4:2:2? at first glance they seam visually very similar .

on high my file became 707mb
on medium it was 532mb
on ow it was 432mb

what is are the advantages of using low over high, or med over high, why not high all the time?

thanks for the explanation.

john h

John, higher bitrates generally correspond with higher quality, but it also means the files are bigger. ou will probably want to use either Medium or High. Ultimately it is your choice, and a function of how much you "push" your images in post. If you don't push your images too much then Medium might be perfect for you. For more extreme post corrections you might want to go with High.

Perhaps others might have some comments about the settings they use?

Would low be a way of reducing the load on my older PC? kind of like a lower res proxy would do if I had that option?

jh

PS: thanks for the quick reply!

Yes John, lower data rates (Low setting) also lowers the compute load making processing more friendly for a tired PC.

David,


I wondered about these settings too.

does putting it on medium actually degrade your picture or just change a bit rate???

I run it on high for obvious reasons because I didn't I did not know for certain.

Doesn't lower bit rate = lower quality by definition?

See Cineform's new Web site for a nice write-up on the quality settings: Cineform Tech Blog Blog Archive Understanding CineForm Quality Settings (http://techblog.cineform.com/?p=288). I'm digging the techblogs Web site...

Thanks
Matt