- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:51 am
Ok, so, after much research and forum diving it appears that alas, Resolve doesnt have, at this time, the best encoder for h.264 files.
This seems to be the general understanding, even if the encoding appears to have improved according to some users.
But here is my concern:
Usually, the response is: "Well, in a professional program such as Resolve, you shouldn't be using a h.264 codec for....." - so on and so forth.
But I have TWO, yes two, counterpoints.
1. Then why include it? It's as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It makes no sense to include a codec, not have any reasonable value to it, and then argue that it shouldn't be there in the first place. Ok, but if that's the case, why is it there? Furthermore, in the most recent versions of Resolve, they've included a YouTube option on the export screen. Again, if we "all should be avoiding it, because we all (I am just paraphrasing here) know it's not the best" - then why is there not only still an option for h.264, but an export for Youtube?
To be fair, the h.264/mp4 export may have been there in the past, maybe not for delivery (even to youtube) and potentially just for a quick render for viewing. But again....there's a YouTube option now. And YouTube doesn't need 80Mbps data rate files, but that brings me to my second point.
2. Resolve went from a coloring application, to almost a full fledged editing platform, audio interface included. It appears that they are trying to compete with the likes of Premiere Pro, correct? We can all agree? So with that being the case, it may make sense to "beef up" the h.264 encoding, in my opinion.
If none of this sounds familiar, I invite you to perform a quick search on this. I guess my point is that the days of arguing that Resolve is too professional for this is a blind justification at this point. I am NOT trying to suggest that Resolve is a bad program. I love it. I use it all the time. But am I overlooking something here? I've ran some tests, and I cannot break 8Mbps on an export, no matter what, for 1080p footage. Before anyone suggests this, I have used Handbrake before. but I am not asking for suggestions.....I am just making a casual observation that the Resolve of yesteryear isnt the same one from today.
Do we know why this is the case? Is it a matter of getting some developers to create a "better" encoder? Cost?
This seems to be the general understanding, even if the encoding appears to have improved according to some users.
But here is my concern:
Usually, the response is: "Well, in a professional program such as Resolve, you shouldn't be using a h.264 codec for....." - so on and so forth.
But I have TWO, yes two, counterpoints.
1. Then why include it? It's as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It makes no sense to include a codec, not have any reasonable value to it, and then argue that it shouldn't be there in the first place. Ok, but if that's the case, why is it there? Furthermore, in the most recent versions of Resolve, they've included a YouTube option on the export screen. Again, if we "all should be avoiding it, because we all (I am just paraphrasing here) know it's not the best" - then why is there not only still an option for h.264, but an export for Youtube?
To be fair, the h.264/mp4 export may have been there in the past, maybe not for delivery (even to youtube) and potentially just for a quick render for viewing. But again....there's a YouTube option now. And YouTube doesn't need 80Mbps data rate files, but that brings me to my second point.
2. Resolve went from a coloring application, to almost a full fledged editing platform, audio interface included. It appears that they are trying to compete with the likes of Premiere Pro, correct? We can all agree? So with that being the case, it may make sense to "beef up" the h.264 encoding, in my opinion.
If none of this sounds familiar, I invite you to perform a quick search on this. I guess my point is that the days of arguing that Resolve is too professional for this is a blind justification at this point. I am NOT trying to suggest that Resolve is a bad program. I love it. I use it all the time. But am I overlooking something here? I've ran some tests, and I cannot break 8Mbps on an export, no matter what, for 1080p footage. Before anyone suggests this, I have used Handbrake before. but I am not asking for suggestions.....I am just making a casual observation that the Resolve of yesteryear isnt the same one from today.
Do we know why this is the case? Is it a matter of getting some developers to create a "better" encoder? Cost?