hi,
what is the difference between rendering from 16 bit TIFFS vs original jpg's?
Do you get a better result with TIFF's?
Is the main benefit that you get a full 16 bit TIFF of each subframe for any other puprose?
I find the amount of time to render with TIFF's is agonizingly slow...and am not sure if I lose anything by rendering with jpg's.

thanks,
Malcolm

If you do all the color editing in Lightroom you can use jpg intermediaries also and won't notice a big difference.
For people that want to do more editing in the video processor, it might make sense to use higher quality intermediaries and rendering.
Check it for your self if you see a difference for your footage. Personally I mostly never do 16bit intermediaries, I use 8bit Tiffs, they are much smaller and faster. But I do all my editing and grading in Lightroom/LRTimelapse.

This post was last modified: 2017-04-26, 13:15 by malcolmp.

thanks. Although the player you recommended I use in Windows (on another thread) opens the 8k file, I can't tell the quality of the movie. All I can do with that file is confirm that it created a movie. Ill try the 8 bit. cheers.

The format of the intermediary files does not have impact on the playability of the rendered videos.
Most computers cannot play back 8K files. From my experience you'll get the best performance with the MPC Player, but even that might struggle with 8K files.

thats my point also, if a computer cant playback an 8k file, checking it for your self if you see a difference for your footage becomes a bit of a challenge! Thanks for your quick reply, as always