[Randycat2001]

What's the difference between using the "video" setting and the "Sorenson video" setting? What kind of algorithm is associated with "video", if it is not Sorenson? I know it isn't straight DV, because the file size is still pretty small. So what is it?

[IMKoRnNuts]

All I know is that Video is an older codec and Sorenson Video should look much much better and have a better quality/file size ratio.

[a holck]

As I can remember the 'video' codec is an uncompressed file format, with Y,R,B (component) channels at 4.2.2 samples, and then runlength encoded.

It is therefore an nearly lossless format when working in Y,R,B colorspace (DV)

[Randycat2001]

That does seem to make sense as I have found quality to be similar between Video and Sorenson Video, but Video is substantially larger in file size. I think it makes a lot of sense to use the "Video" setting when initially capturing the video. That way you can be assured of the most faithful rendition short of storing plain DV, while enjoying the moderate compression efficiency of the run-length encoding- it's the best compromise between video quality and file storage requirements. Then you can edit, mix, and match your clips as you wish and then export to Sorenson video later on.

Except one thing- if it is simply a lossless run-length encoding, then why is there a quality slider adjustment? I know I have seen substantial video degradation when using the lower quality settings.