Frage von Die Talla:
Hi,
have again a "dumb" Beginners question:
I want my HD footage can be sent from abroad, as I've heard I should read to me send it as an AVI so I can edit them in EDIUS 5 well. Now there is but one wants to send me the footage necessarily as a MOV file which I do not understand?
Can I MOV file as well as the EDIUS edit the AVI file or
an MOV file has a lower quality? I have never worked with a MOV file.
Antwort von tommyb:
MOV and AVI are just container and have nothing to do with quality. That is what makes the quality of the codec used.
Go to MOV vs. AVI question:
- Do you have a MAC system: take MOV
- Do you have a win-system: take AVI
While it is not a major problem synonymous Quicktime MOV files on a Windows Calculator to process - this is or was but only for times when on Windows or the Quicktime 6 player could be installed. Since Quicktime 7 is running the whole interface so crappy that an import of Quicktime files in most cases only produced frustration.
Second aspect: if the person has to send out is Quicktime files of their work do not know (and confirmed the suspicion, as he insists on Quicktime - for a Windows system would never take a material supplier Quicktime) and possibly for export shit builds, you'll get the file reinzubringen toiling in your editing system.
Search in times slashCAM forum for a thread where people cry about not usable Quicktime Files - you'll understand.
Third aspect: YOU are a supplier, YOU get what YOU say, not he.
Antwort von Alf_300:
if he absolutely wants to send MOV, he should first send a test file, then you see just what goes and what does not.
Camera.Mov go just yet, but with Apple.Mov can already give significant problems.
Antwort von Jott:
for a Windows system would never take a material supplier Quicktime Na na ... exactly wrong rum. In the real world, a material supplier would never take AVI. Quicktime is the default for both worlds. Or, you know as synonymous only one footage portal, which is NOT based on Quicktime? iStockphoto, fotolia, Artbeats, Pond5, FootageFirm, Digital Juice, was always synonymous: Quicktime.
And since all except a few loonies allegedly cut produce with Windows systems and, quite obviously, can be absolutely no problem. It just needs a universally accessible codec used, that is all.
Antwort von tommyb:
Hirk ... certainly, is delivered in Quicktime container, clear.
But as you have surely read, Quicktime 7 in the pre-era was a problem. With QT7 one has with its Windows-only editing software stress of at least doubled if not synonymous with a 64 bit Windows runs 64-bit editing system (QT7 because then either do not run, or all of the software to crash).
Drum and is still the best solution for a Windows PC: AVI
(And a Mac just Quicktime)
And if we are talking of Standards:
MP4 container, I prefer the MOV before shit still better, for what is contained in an MP4 file, you can ummuxen with a bunch of tools in a different container (if you have problems) - is that the crippled Wannabe standard of Apple, unfortunately, not so simple.
PS: Portals with stock footage in addition to Quicktime synonymous still have other things such as AVI, MPEG, M2T, etc. A truly standardized lead the line, unfortunately not synonymous ...
Antwort von Jott:
Hirk ... certainly, is delivered in Quicktime container, clear.
But as you have surely read, Quicktime 7 in the pre-era was a problem. With QT7 one has with its Windows-only editing software stress of at least doubled if not synonymous with a 64 bit Windows runs 64-bit editing system (QT7 because then either do not run, or all of the software to crash).
Drum and is still the best solution for a Windows PC: AVI
(And a Mac just Quicktime)
And if we are talking of Standards:
MP4 container, I prefer the MOV before shit still better, for what is contained in an MP4 file, you can ummuxen with a bunch of tools in a different container (if you have problems) - is that the crippled Wannabe standard of Apple, unfortunately, not so simple.
PS: Portals with stock footage in addition to Quicktime synonymous still have other things such as AVI, MPEG, M2T, etc. A truly standardized lead the line, unfortunately not synonymous ... Tell that to the above footage portals, perhaps synonymous like Getty Images. The have noticed the still not well! ;-)
Antwort von tommyb:
The work with Apple systems (I surmise), which cares a fart.
Antwort von pailes:
And if we are talking of Standards:
MP4 container, I prefer the MOV before shit still better, for what is contained in an MP4 file, you can ummuxen with a bunch of tools in a different container (if you have problems) - is that the crippled Wannabe standard of Apple, unfortunately, not so simple. But you know already that the MPEG-4 containers. MOV based, right? Respectively. MPEG-4 is almost a subset of. MOV, details I would need to raussuchen synonymous first time: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4
Antwort von tommyb:
But you know already that the MPEG-4 containers. MOV based, right? Thanks, but I knew already synonymous.
The MP4 container is in contrast to MOV better documented. Take for example the number s.verfügbaren freeware mp4 libavformat s.vs. such, the QT control ...
Antwort von pailes:
The MP4 container is in contrast to MOV better documented. Take for example the number s.verfügbaren freeware mp4 libavformat s.vs. such, the QT control ... This is nonsense, even in the times. MOV specification reingeschaut? The MPEG has decided for sure not without reason. MOV, because. MOV is specified by and by when. AVI is only just porridge.
There are more MP4-Muxer/Demuxer because. MP4 is easier than knitting. MOV. Also: What a bad freeware tools for a reference?
Antwort von Jott:
The work with Apple systems (I surmise), which cares a fart. Really? But these are for-profit companies, who know exactly what will the ladies professional clientele, needs and buying. You are completely on the wrong track. Unless you go out from the fact that professionals usually work only with Macs. Would of course be synonymous a conclusion! ;-)
Antwort von tommyb:
The MPEG has decided for sure not without reason. MOV, because. MOV is specified by and by when. AVI is only just porridge. Never of mine claims.
There are more MP4-Muxer/Demuxer because. MP4 is easier than knitting. MOV. According to your first statement is thus the better MOV container and this container was still easier and it was then MP4. If MOV is so superior, why did they not keep it straight with all its complexity and had to simplify it mandatory? Well?
Also: What a bad freeware tools for a reference? Just because the "complex" Quicktime process can not be that simple, however, already does not make Quicktime MP4 for better container. Your position is a mystery to me.
Perhaps you feel attacked because I'm your favorite down-home format, or at least put it worse than the alternatives on the market that run without problems as both Windows synonymous Mac ... But seis drum, QT has been v.7 scrap (on Windows) and it's will remain (until the very latest 8, then we can see next).
Antwort von tommyb:
The work with Apple systems (I surmise), which cares a fart.
Really? But these are for-profit companies, who know exactly what will the ladies clientele, needs and buying. You are completely on the wrong track. Unless you go out from the fact that professionals usually work only with Macs. Would of course be synonymous a conclusion! ;-) Orly?
Ever at Shutterstock Videos eingekooft? Who needs their videos, is pleased but whether he is crippled in MOV or M2T present as ... main thing he has them.
(Which is mitlerweile improve, M2T is actually already hardly used, except with the older videos)
Antwort von Jott:
But yes. The full Resolutionliegt there almost always synonymous in Quicktime before. Reduced Resolutions are cheaper than small mpg files sold at a loss. If it's sufficient for a specific project, why not. As one would generally not buy a heavily compressed footage in GOP codec, Shutterstock is an exception and thus a haven for Quicktime-hater!
Antwort von Meggs:
I agree with TommyB. AVI is in the Windows world standard and MOV in the Mac world.
If the typical Windows user material passes, then he asks the recipient, in what format he needs the material.
The typical Mac user simply sends MOV.
MOV is therefore a certain standard, because that both the typical Mac user is reached, the command accepts and knows nothing other than synonymous typical Windows user which can do normally synonymous with Quicktime.
Antwort von tommyb:
As one would generally not buy a heavily compressed footage in GOP codec, Shutterstock is an exception and thus a haven for Quicktime-hater! Certainly, but for Motion JPEG can not really take everything from container grumbles ...
Antwort von gunman:
Hi,
have again a "dumb" Beginners question:
I want my HD footage can be sent from abroad, as I've heard I should read to me send it as an AVI so I can edit them in EDIUS 5 well. Now there is but one wants to send me the footage necessarily as a MOV file which I do not understand?
Can I MOV file as well as the EDIUS edit the AVI file or an MOV file has a lower quality?
I have never worked with a MOV file. Hi,
work itself synonymous with Edius 5:51 and MY Edius does not read mov files!
Antwort von pailes:
The MPEG has decided for sure not without reason. MOV, because. MOV is specified by and by when. AVI is only just porridge.
Never of mine claims. You claim. MOV is a "crippled Wannabe standard" is obviously you have no idea of the format itself
According to your first statement is thus the better MOV container and this container was still easier and it was then MP4. If MOV is so superior, why did they not keep it straight with all its complexity and had to simplify it mandatory? Well? . MP4 is therefore "only" a subset of. MOV, is because not all details of. MOV for. MP4 relevant. Nevertheless, the file formats are very similar. . AVI other hand, is simply unusable. Microsoft, incidentally. WMV proposed for the MP4 standard, but was rejected. Well?
Also: What a bad freeware tools for a reference?
Just because the "complex" Quicktime process can not be that simple, however, already does not make Quicktime MP4 for better container. Huh? So again to take notes:
You said:. MOV is garbage. AVI is better. MP4 grad still acceptable
I said. MP4 is based on. MOV
And if you ask me directly, yes, from a technical perspective. MOV to be much better. AVI. The synonymous Microsoft knew, or they would not with. Must come along WMV.
Perhaps you feel attacked because I'm your favorite down-home format, or at least put it worse than the alternatives on the market that run without problems as both Windows synonymous Mac ... I feel at all attacked me is to use each what he wants. But falsehoods must be to stand and not necessarily so, or? Dass. MOV a "crippled Wannabe standard is" ultimately only your subjective point of view.
But seis drum, QT has been v.7 scrap (on Windows) and it's will remain (until the very latest 8, then we can see next). As it begins already s.with halt the dangerous half-knowledge. What is QT for you? MOV QT =? QT = Quicktime Player? QT = Quicktime Framework? QuickTime is many things, here was only the format of the speech and you minglest somehow everything, but is not substantiated your statements. And QT 8 it will probably not give, but that you knew already, of course, synonymous.
