#Xavc s vs xavc l mp4#
#Xavc s vs xavc l software#

So don't spend time worrying about the differences between XAVC S and MP4 - look instead at what specific cameras do with those formats and how well they do it. For example, the Panasonic GH4 records 4K video at 100Mbit/sec using advanced codec options to MP4 files, and the reports I've seen indicate that the results are superior to the 50Mbit/sec XAVC S output produced by some of the Sony cameras. So some cheap cameras record MP4 files that are pretty basic and other cameras record MP4 files that are even better than XAVC S. 'MP4' is a simple H.264 container without any restrictions on what kind of resolutions, bit rates, or encoding options you can use with it.

#Xavc s vs xavc l software#

XAVC / XAVC S are the same kind of concept as AVCHD - they are both no more than a set of standard resolutions, encoding options and bit rates to be used with the H.264 codec so that equipment or software designated as 'XAVC' (or 'AVCHD') compliant is guaranteed to be able to read them. I'm kind of confused about this new XAVC S codec used for 4k video. when 4K h.265 and p60 make it to the enthusiast cameras or smartphones, it will be time for me to do the move. The experts will abstain a reply by insisting that neither is better than ProRes, RAW, or whatnot. I'd bet that most consumers won't notice the difference, other than that XAVC-S will consume memory cards more slowly. Other than branding, the only way one could know is to do a side-by-side test of XAVC-S and MP4, to see whether their is a quality difference, or whether one supports grading or editing better or easier than the other. Possibly, it will save lots of space or bandwidth, but require heaps of CPU to play or render. The elephant in the room is when and how h.265 4K will appear in cameras or playing devices over the next 24 months. I'd bet that most consumers won't notice the difference, other than that XAVC-S willВ consume memory cards more slowly. Very possibly, XAVC is the format that Sony would like to be the standard for 4k Blu-ray, if it every appears, since it may use less optical disc space than MP4 for the same IQ. Trouble is, we don't have native 4k video capture at 60mbps to compare properly, since the GH4 captures at 100mbps, and compression to 60mbps would entail IQ loss anyway, a fate of all MP$ or other 'lossy' formats. Sony might argue that XAVC-S delivers essentially the same perceived IQ at 60mbps that MP4 delivers at 100mbps. Other than branding, the only way one could know is toВ do a side-by-side test of XAVC-S and MP4, to see whether their is a quality difference, or whether one supports grading or editing better or easier than the other.

Or why is there MOV if MP4 will do, and so on. Sort of asking why the world needs Nikon lenses if Canon makes ones with a slightly different mount.