Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 458843
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Encode quality and speed
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 11:07
in reply to "RE[3]: Encode quality and speed"
"I disagree. Software such as Premiere or Final Cut Pro is rip-off, pure and simple. It is pay-through-the-nose "branding", like Gucci or Ferrari, as opposed to super-value-for-money, like encoding to WebM using a command line program in conjunction with a simple GUI frontend or a couple of convenience scripts.
Why is it then that virtually nobodys workflow consists of Kdenlive+multiple command-line encoders, whereas them Premiere, FCP et al. have so many users that they run a business catering to them? "
Same reason why Gucci make bucketloads of money ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gucci
... selling cured animal skins.
RE[4]: Encode quality and speed
by ichi on Tue 18th Jan 2011 11:08
in reply to "RE[3]: Encode quality and speed"
They are each talking about different things: NLE vs batch encoding/transcoding.
If you are editing video then obviously out of convenience you will use some format out of the list of supported output formats in FCP.
On the other hand, as soon as you upload your video to vimeo, youtube or whatever it'll be transcoded, so the point is the huge majority of videos being streamed don't retain the encoding format from the NLE as they have been transcoded later.
Whether you use h264 or WebM on FCP is hence largely irrelevant when it comes to web video.




Member since:
2005-08-27
Why is it then that virtually nobodys workflow consists of Kdenlive+multiple command-line encoders, whereas them Premiere, FCP et al. have so many users that they run a business catering to them?