@AaronC1

Because editing of any kind is not the same as copying a clip. Each time any change is made to a video clip it is re-encoded which means it goes through the encoding process again. This can never be avioded.

Please read any of the forum posts on the subject. This one may start you off.

https://www.magix.info/uk/forum/how-to-re-encode-without-losing-any-quality--1220548/

So then what is the point in offering an “uncompressed” export option if it isn’t going to be uncompressed?

Because as CubeAce pointed out it has to be re-encoded. The original file has to be decoded then encoded even if the encoded file is uncompressed.

@AaronC1

Hi

. . . . exported as AVI uncompressed . . . .

As @CubeAce and @ericlnz have said the video will have to be re-encoded.

If you are exporting at a higher resolution eg 1920 x 1080 then the image will have poorer quality ie softer and/or have some blockiness apparent.

The same goes for if you are viewing 702 x 576 at a higher resolution eg full screen on a 1920 x 1080 monitor.

You can compensate for the perceived softness by adding sharpening - from the menu bar select Effects, Movie Effects, Sharpness tab and apply a setting between 25 and 35 - you will have to determine the best setting for your video.

HTH

John EB

@AaronC1

I assume the original 704x576 has come from a DVD? In any event it will have stretched pixels. When exporting to AVI are you using the same 704x576 image size and identical pixel aspect ratio?

@ericlnz

Because uncompressed just means the file size is not reduced and often takes less time to recode.

If you change the file type you often just end up with larger files with no real benefit. An edited copy will always be worse/different, than the original as the file has to be recoded to know the order of the clips and the length needed.

@AaronC1

Hi

@ericlnz has a good point there - if the source video is from a DVD or mini DV camera, then the video has already been highly compressed and exporting as uncompressed AVI will reveal how poor the quality of the source video is.

If you export as MPG at the same resolution you will probably see little difference between the original and export.

John EB

@AaronC1

I assume the original 704x576 has come from a DVD? In any event it will have stretched pixels. When exporting to AVI are you using the same 704x576 image size and identical pixel aspect ratio?

Yes and yes.

@ericlnz

Because uncompressed just means the file size is not reduced and often takes less time to recode.

If you change the file type you often just end up with larger files with no real benefit. An edited copy will always be worse/different, than the original as the file has to be recoded to know the order of the clips and the length needed.

I see. Thanks for making that clearer for me. So uncompressed is clearly not the same as lossless?

@AaronC1

Hi

@ericlnz has a good point there - if the source video is from a DVD or mini DV camera, then the video has already been highly compressed and exporting as uncompressed AVI will reveal how poor the quality of the source video is.

If you export as MPG at the same resolution you will probably see little difference between the original and export.

John EB

 

Why would exporting to uncompressed AVI reveal how poor the quality of the source video is? And, when you say MPG, do you mean as in MPEG-2 and not MPEG-4?

@AaronC1

Correct.

Codecs, in general, are like jpegs. They are processed files to produce video footage that can be watched by anyone with the correct codecs to play them back with the appropriate software/hardware. Even most commercial non-Pro video cameras do this when they record in a mov. or mpg.format. The files would be huge if they didn't. Anyone working at broadcast standards with cameras or equipment capable of handling the bandwidth of such files often need Terrabytes of storage and quite high specced processing equipment to handle them. For mere mortals like ourselves, most of what we work with will already be encoded at least once. At least this means less processing and editing than working with raw video material, as such things as sharpening, contrast and colour are already taken care of by the selections you make before you record. The downside is, quite often the more times you re-edit a piece, the more degradation you will eventually introduce, and you will never see the full capability of your camera's sensor.

Re-encoding always means the file has to be looked at and evaluated, and new decissions are taken by the software about how to go about it. Remember, a codecs main purpose is to reduce the file size to something most people can play back. It has no way to tell if a video clip has been encoded already. All it sees is information that needs to be put together and will try to do so as efficiently as it can.

@AaronC1

Correct.

Codecs, in general, are like jpegs. They are processed files to produce video footage that can be watched by anyone with the correct codecs to play them back with the appropriate software/hardware. Even most commercial non-Pro video cameras do this when they record in a mov. or mpg.format. The files would be huge if they didn't. Anyone working at broadcast standards with cameras or equipment capable of handling the bandwidth of such files often need Terrabytes of storage and quite high specced processing equipment to handle them. For mere mortals like ourselves, most of what we work with will already be encoded at least once. At least this means less processing and editing than working with raw video material, as such things as sharpening, contrast and colour are already taken care of by the selections you make before you record. The downside is, quite often the more times you re-edit a piece, the more degradation you will eventually introduce, and you will never see the full capability of your camera's sensor.

Re-encoding always means the file has to be looked at and evaluated, and new decissions are taken by the software about how to go about it. Remember, a codecs main purpose is to reduce the file size to something most people can play back. It has no way to tell if a video clip has been encoded already. All it sees is information that needs to be put together and will try to do so as efficiently as it can.

I tried a bit of a far fetched test, which was I tried the export again but this time using a Constant Quantizer of 1-1-1, but even that still produced the same slight softening look that exporting as uncompressed gave. Except the only difference was the data rate was massive of course. Not quite as massive as uncompressed AVI though.