Data Size in QT inspector is vastly different than Finder

Question

Hi all,
I am looking at the size of my QT movie files in the finder, and comparing the size to the Data Size in the QT Inspector window.
I notice that the average video has a difference of a few percentage points between the Inspector and the Finder.  For example, the Inspector might think the video is 3.52GB in size, and the Finder will say that it is 3.3GB in size.  Fine, this can be rounding differences that add up.
That said, I recently copied and compressed 27 DVDs for a client (home movies on mini-DVDs) to DVCPRO50 movie files, and I notice that the difference between the Finder and the QT inspector is vastly different. For example, the QT Inspector thinks the file is 23.1GB, but the Finder thinks it is 12.4GB.
This kind of difference is roughly the same for all of the videos that I just compressed.
Any thoughts?
Notes:
1) I ran Disk First Aid (repairs, and permissions). No problems found.
2) The transcoded files are DVCPRO50.
Thanks,
matt

Answer 1

So, setting aside the irregularities in the reporting of file size, is there anything I should be aware of now that I DID transcode a full days worth of files using DVCPRO50 as a DV file?
Not really. The DVCPRO50 video is the same whether in in the DV or the MOV file container.  Always rely on the Finder when judging the file size as it reflects the actual amount of space the data + unused space the container takes up on your drive. Just remember that the Finder reports in 2^10 magnitudes of storage as opposed to "true" decimal numbers.
Besides it being curious that all of my files have a .dv file type, I notice that they play back poorly in Final Cut Pro.  They seem to be hitting the processor with a double-whammy.
Not sure what you are comparing to here. Remember DVCPRO50 has twice the data rate of DVCPRO25/DV25 and half the data rate of a DV100 codec. Playback, of course, is related to dropped frames which depends on the CPU power of your system, as well as, the number and type of procedures that are simultaneously active/sharing the CPU(s). Also remember that DVCPRO50 is not a delivery-distribution compression format and is not normally used for the playback of content. It is, instead, a source/editing/archiving format for the retention of optimum quality at the expense of increased data rate/file size.
Any other potential gotchyas that I should be terrified about as I edit this video, export it, and prep it to go back on a DVD?
Again, not really. Depending on the sourcing of your content and the original color space, it may or may not be the most suitable compression format but is not likely to do harm either at an amateur/prosumer work flow level (which is the category I would use to describe my typical projects). As long as you have sufficient file space and can be satisfied with the final result, you should be fine.