September 15, 2014, 12:21:43 AM

Author Topic: ALL-I vs IPB  (Read 30658 times)

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 06:11:21 AM »
ALL-I is better in quality and better in cutting.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2012, 06:11:21 AM »

HurtinMinorKey

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 416
    • View Profile
    • carolineculler.com
Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2012, 12:22:49 PM »
ALL-I is better in quality and better in cutting.

ALL-I shows macro blocking because it has to draw each frame independently, and the bit-rate is just not high enough to draw all the detail.  This is the reason that inter frame often looks better when viewed in motion. 

victorwol

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2012, 03:00:52 PM »
ALL-I is better in quality and better in cutting.

I respectfully disagree....  as HurtinMinorKey stated, even if you have more bits per frame, those need to represent the full frame, on each frame, while the other one, only the difference so at the end, you see less compression with the IPB than with the ALL-I yes it is easier to edit with it, but if it comes to image quality, I rather have IPB by far.
1D X - 5D MKIII - 7D - 24 f1.4L - 8-15 L - 50 1.2L - 85 1.2L - 15 2.8 - 16-35 2.8L - 24-105 4.0L - 70-200 2.8 LII - 24 TSE - 45 TSE - 90 TSE - MPE 65 - 180 f3.5L - 100 2.8L II - 580EX and a few Einsteins.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: ALL-I vs IPB
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2012, 03:00:52 PM »