A quick question. I'm shooting a job in China which is going directly to web and the editor I'm working with has said that it takes a long time to render the XF305 files @ 1920 x 1080 50mb/s so I thought as it's going direct to web and I want to make his life easier that it would be better to shoot 1920 x 1080 25 mb/s which I'm pretty sure is still better quality than PAL dvcam which is 625 lines @ 25mb/s am I wrong ? Or would it be better to go down the 1920 x 720 35mb/s route. Not that the client has asked for better quality than dvcam I just wanted to be able to give a bench mark that the client would understand.
We are going to need a quick turnaround on this shoot as I will be shooting during the day and then the editor is going to have to edit and post it on the web that night. hence why I want to help with his render times.
Thanks
Mark

Actually it's significantly better than DVCAM quality...

I think I might be inclined towards 720p if it is web only?

Agreed.
He'd get more recording time as well as battery time too.
The quality is more than enough for the web - in fact, it would look excellent...

Hi Mark,

Just curious what PC or Mac specs your editor in China will be running?

As you mentioned that a fast turnaround time will be an issue, I hope that your editor has enough power to grind through Canon's MXF files.

And if your final distro/output will be for the web, then I do agree with Nick and Robin that 720p should be good enough. Although for archiving purposes, I'm always inclined to shoot with the highest resolution you can with any camera, and downconvert for specific delivery purposes (DVD, BluRay, web, etc.)

Good luck,

Great Thanks I'll suggest we go 720 @ 35 mb/s. The editor is using a fairly new Mac Book Pro with FCP.
Thanks
Mark

Jeff,

Totally agree with you - I'm a believer in capturing the maximum quality, editing and then choosing the delivery format. In this case though I think the 720 / 35Mbs is a good choice.