Skip to main content
Inspiring
November 7, 2017
Question

DNxHR HQ vs SQ

  • November 7, 2017
  • 1 reply
  • 17080 views

Hello,

My camera records as AVCHD .MTS files at 28Mbps.

I'm currently working on a documentary project where eventually I will have (estimate guess) over 1TB of footage. Since I won't end up using all the footage in my final edit I want to only Transcode from in to out using Prelude what footage I actually need. Is it a waste of disk space to transcode to DNxHR HQ or SQ 10 bit since my camera only films in 8 bit? If so then is transcoding to HQ or SQ better in 8 bit? If so do I pick HQ or SQ for DNxHR? I obviously want to retain the quality but not sure wheter HQ or SQ is best.

I did a test where I transcoded time selected clips in SQ and that was about the same size as AVCHD and the quality looked okay but I'm just not sure if that's going to be fine when I start the color correction and the final export.

This topic has been closed for replies.

1 reply

R Neil Haugen
Legend
November 7, 2017

Here's a table of the compression rates of the DNx codecs ... unfortunately, this doesn't give an Mbps rating though, as that would of course differ depending on frame-size/rate I'm thinking. From what I can tell, the compression ratio is similar for both DNxHD and DNxHR.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...
Inspiring
November 7, 2017

Would you say that HQ 8 bit is better for me or SQ 8 bit? I could be wrong but isn't 10 bit overkill when my camera only records in 8 bit?

R Neil Haugen
Legend
November 7, 2017

10-bit might be overkill,but as you're only transcoding pieces, I'd go with the HQ over the Sq ... the DNx codecs are great, but you'll get less artifacting/macroblocking due to compression with the higher bit-rate/lower compression.

There's a certain level of just it needs enough data to work best with video. And for projects with miles of footage, well ... it just takes disc space.

Neil

Everyone's mileage always varies ...