Microstock Footage Forum > Video Equipment / Sofware / Technique

All-I or IPB Compression

(1/1)

grejak:
I have two Canon DSLRs and one shoots All-I and the other cheaper one is IPB only, but its smaller and more practical :)

Does it matter which one you chose for stock footage? I know that all-i is better quality but in the end, does it matter?

Thanks!

odesigns:
All-I is preferred by editors as its easier for the workstation to use and process.

But ultimately for stock, it really doesn't matter, no matter what you may have heard.  If you have the shot someone needs, they'll get it regardless of frame rate, resolution, or codec.

increasingdifficulty:

--- Quote from: grejak on January 18, 2019, 15:56 ---I have two Canon DSLRs and one shoots All-I and the other cheaper one is IPB only, but its smaller and more practical :)

Does it matter which one you chose for stock footage? I know that all-i is better quality but in the end, does it matter?

Thanks!

--- End quote ---

As Odesigns pointed out - in the end, it doesn't really matter too much.

That being said, All-I does not necessarily mean better quality. You would generally need a much higher bitrate for All-I to be better quality. At the same bitrate, IPD is likely to provide better quality, which is why it is so widely used. It is much more effective compression, which also means more taxing for the computer to decode.

Furthermore, there are many different types of IPB and All-I methods, and quality can differ by enormous amounts. So, there is no easy answer here without knowing exactly what cameras you're using.

H265 compression in the newer cameras is extremely effective and provides excellent quality, but, and a big but, it is also a pain to edit, so you would most often have to transcode it to something like ProRes before editing. H264 is easier to handle which makes it a good compromise.

grejak:
I'm using 5Dmk3 and SL2/200D.

Thanks again!

Navigation

[0] Message Index