3 ms·
> * And it can handle Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) files, which are vastly higher-quality than MP3s and more compressed than WAV.* Why does a photographer
by eridius 10y ago
> * And it can handle Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) files, which are vastly higher-quality than MP3s and more compressed than WAV.*
Why does a photographer care about this? And who seriously compares this sort of thing to MP3 these days anyway, when we've had better codecs for a long time?
- URSpider94 10y agoOne who shoots video and records audio segments as well?? That's why he mentions shooting 4K video and plugging in a Rode microphone later in the piece.
- eridius 10y agoI'm not aware of any video format that uses FLAC.
- jungletek 10y agoWell, the video codec doesn't handle audio anyway, so neither am I. The container format is what I suspect you mean, and Matroska can handle just about anything. There are others, but that was the first off the top of my head, and IMO the only one worth using these days whenever possible. This wikipedia chart is useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_formats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_container_...
- eridius 10y agoI don't think I've seen an .mkv in literally years. I didn't think video recorders recorded in that format either. .mp4 and .mpeg are still the video containers that I see 99% of the time (note: I don't use a WebM-capable browser, so I don't see WebM videos).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]