Kieran O Leary wrote: >Reto: Can you elaborate on the multiplication that you mention? >I'm assuming that this is not just the increase in file size >that you mention,
I guess, that's the more "visible" aspect for many archives. (I used the term "multiplication" (in quotation marks), because it's more that just an addition.) >but perhaps you're referring to losslessly >compressing a proprietary lossy codec and ending up with >something that could be more complex than is necessary? For example the increased complexity slows down the workflows. If you have just a few of those files, then it doesn't really hurt; but if there are PB, then it does make a difference in terms of needed time and/or infrastructure. I have included ProRes and QuickTime issues in presentations during the last year or so, and an article will possibly be published by the IASA Journal. >I think even >if we go ahead with this normalisation of our legacy in-house >created material, applying it to potential ProRes >donations/deposits would be a different conversation.. My concern is about "ProRes-born" materials. For example many video artists have used or are still using this way to create. Or low-budget productions. In all those situations ProRes is the best possible quality. I would also be interested in knowing the ratio, let's say, between ProRes 4444 and DPX productions which are currently screened as DCP in theatres. Best regards, Reto AV Preservation by reto.ch chemin du Suchet 5 | 1024 Ecublens | Switzerland Web: <https://reto.ch> | Twitter: @retoch _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
