You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Compressed vs. Uncompressed

Posted: Sun, 27th Feb 2011, 8:49am

Post 1 of 4

ocjedi

Force: 200 | Joined: 9th Jun 2005 | Posts: 12

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

I made a 25 second lightsaber video. It looks great & now I need to render it. Which one of these should I choose? Is the quality that much better in an uncompressed file? Worth the file size? Don't know if this helps but once rendered it will be placed in Pinnacle Studio so I can add a soundtrack & special sound effects.
Posted: Sun, 27th Feb 2011, 1:40pm

Post 2 of 4

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well if it is uncompressed than it will be better quality, so the question is, is the quality difference important to you? In general I'd imagine it would be, most of the time. I guess it depends, but I'd just do uncompressed.
Posted: Sun, 27th Feb 2011, 5:15pm

Post 3 of 4

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You would definitely want to render out uncompressed footage during the editing process as well as when you're doing any kind of post visual effects work. Simply because compressing the footage degrades it, and this is pretty obvious in the quality of the footage. Yes... file sizes can go up fast but honestly... you want your renders to look thier best so it is worth it.
You can always compress the footage once you've completed editing/adding visual effects/sound.
Posted: Sun, 27th Feb 2011, 7:44pm

Post 4 of 4

ocjedi

Force: 200 | Joined: 9th Jun 2005 | Posts: 12

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

Thanks for all your help. I think I'm sold on compressed. Now what about basic vs. High (Anti-Aliased). What does that even mean?