Return-Path: Received: from p3plsmtpa06-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.192.109] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with SMTP id 4574752 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 02:02:58 +0100 Received: (qmail 19329 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2011 01:09:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (173.247.4.230) by p3plsmtpa06-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.109) with ESMTP; 28 Dec 2011 01:09:22 -0000 Subject: Re: [AE] best codec for cross platform sharing References: From: Greg Balint Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7DBCB9CE-B750-412B-BF2B-B7DA386E5218 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A334) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <1A9B4DC4-6A49-452B-ADAB-9B362C3A5F94@delrazor.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:09:31 -0500 To: After Effects Mail List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-7DBCB9CE-B750-412B-BF2B-B7DA386E5218 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Not downing this discussion because it's a good one. But on the subject at h= and, the OP had mentioned it was a contest entry. I don't see why a visually= lossless codec should be submitted for a contest entry. The OP was mentioni= ng visually lossless codecs but did that mean it was what was needed or just= their guess as to what to use? Is H.264 generally not accepted for somethi= ng like this? ////Greg Balint ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer delRAZOR.com/ On Dec 27, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > actually, after reading a bit more, SR is based on Mpeg 4 Part 2 =3D h263 := ( so Sony really hasn't done anything so great. they just implemented an old= codec but gave it more bits to work ok.=20 >=20 > On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:57 PM, TSassoon@aol.com wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> In a message dated 12/27/11 1:44:53 PM, steveo@practicali.com writes: >>=20 >>> if sony has indeed developed a NEW SR codec that isn't h264 that would b= e interesting >>=20 >> Let me get this straight. Are you saying Adobe should come up with some e= ntirely new visually lossless codec completely free of patent encumbrance an= d neither low bitrate nor high bitrate but perfect for whatever it is that y= ou do? And it has to be more original than Sony, MPEG, SMPTE, ISO, Fraunhofe= r and whoever else could come up with, or you're just going to yawn at it fr= om utter boredom? >=20 > YES. it was needed 10 years ago, and that need has not gone away. if anyth= ing its gotten worse because of : >=20 > 1. a great codec thats closed and not fully cross platform >=20 > 2. is "open" but has other problems like patents >=20 > 3. was never given a chance, ie digital cinema format >=20 > 4. an ok codec with licensing restrictions / problems >=20 > honestly its probably impossible to do anything with software these days t= hat doesn't touch some body's patent. its amazing the k-rap the patent offic= e has given out patents on, especially in the realm of software for which th= ey have no clue about. patent reform is a bit out of scope here. >=20 > Sony hasn't come up with anything new it seems.=20 >=20 > Adobe is one of the few companies large enough to do this. I don't ask the= m to do it for free. I'd be willing to pay something reasonable per seat for= it. I'd also require that the 100 year rule be answered - there a published= spec that some one can write against to at least be able to decode the file= down the road. adobe can also pick up revenue from licensing it into hardwa= re like cameras and recorders. just like other adobe technologies that just k= eep earning them money every year. >=20 > I'm tired of living in fear of apple cutting ProRes loose, or coming up wi= th ProRes II and never fixing the gamma shift problems with ProRes. I've got= hundreds of hours of material in ProRes. I know thats nothing compared to w= hat the networks have. I'm waiting for apple to do something to completely s= crew this up and I can then convert to something new. >=20 > B&W RGB separation prints don't work for most folks either :( >=20 > so I need a medium bit rate lossless / slightly lossy codec. one I can use= everyday to edit on with bare drives, over gigabit if I need to without hav= ing huge problems. DV50 was a great SD codec, but we never had DV200 HD. 4:= 2:2 full raster is good enough for everyday=20 >=20 >> Here's a tip for you: use AE's Cineon Converter utility to convert Lin-Lo= g with zero Softclip (highlight rolloff), and save as QuickTime Photo-JPEG a= t around 90-95. Now you have what is effectively a 10-bit file that's comple= tely x-plat compatible (Mac, Win, Lin, Irix, OS2, etc.), inverts back to lin= ear and/or can hold out of range black or white values (you can premult and u= se the old "matte on super-black" trick), is pretty close to visually lossle= ss, and is available to you right now at no cost. >=20 > thats a great idea... except my world doesn't just revolve around AE. I c= an't set my camera to output that, I can't hand it to a client and expect th= em to know what to do, other apps won't work with that material very well, e= ct. Its cool it can work, and in a closed environment where everyone underst= ands the workflow, sure. >=20 > steve o >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-7DBCB9CE-B750-412B-BF2B-B7DA386E5218 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Not downing this discussio= n because it's a good one. But on the subject at hand, the OP had mentioned i= t was a contest entry. I don't see why a visually lossless codec should be s= ubmitted for a contest entry. The OP was mentioning visually lossless codecs= but did that mean it was what was needed or just their guess as to what to u= se?  Is H.264 generally not accepted for something like this?

//= //Greg Balint
///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer

On Dec 27,= 2011, at 7:18 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> wrote:

actually, after reading a bit more, SR is based on Mpeg 4 P= art 2 =3D h263 :( so Sony really hasn't done anything so great. they just im= plemented an old codec but gave it more bits to work ok. 

On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:57 PM, TSassoon@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/27/11 1:44:53 PM, steveo@practicali.com writes:

= i= f sony has indeed developed a NEW SR codec that isn't h264 that would be int= eresting

Let me get this straight. Are you saying Adobe should come up with some enti= rely new visually lossless codec completely free of patent encumbrance and n= either low bitrate nor high bitrate but perfect for whatever it is that you d= o? And it has to be more original than Sony, MPEG, SMPTE, ISO, Fraunhofer an= d whoever else could come up with, or you're just going to yawn at it from u= tter boredom?

YES. it was n= eeded 10 years ago, and that need has not gone away. if anything its gotten w= orse because of :

1. a great codec thats closed and= not fully cross platform

2. is "open"  but ha= s other problems like patents

3. was never given a c= hance, ie digital cinema format

4. an ok codec with= licensing restrictions / problems

honestly its pro= bably impossible to do anything with software these days that doesn't touch s= ome body's patent. its amazing the k-rap the patent office has given out pat= ents on, especially in the realm of software for which they have no clue abo= ut.  patent reform is a bit out of scope here.

Sony hasn't come up with anything new it seems. 

<= div>Adobe is one of the few companies large enough to do this. I don't ask t= hem to do it for free. I'd be willing to pay something reasonable per seat f= or it. I'd also require that the 100 year rule be answered - there a publish= ed spec that some one can write against to at least be able to decode the fi= le down the road. adobe can also pick up revenue from licensing it into hard= ware like cameras and recorders. just like other adobe technologies that jus= t keep earning them money every year.

I'm tired of l= iving in fear of apple cutting ProRes loose, or coming up with ProRes II and= never fixing the gamma shift problems with ProRes. I've got hundreds of hou= rs of material  in ProRes. I know thats nothing compared to what the ne= tworks have. I'm waiting for apple to do something to completely screw this u= p and I can then convert to something new.

B&W R= GB separation prints don't work for most folks either :(

so I need a medium bit rate lossless / slightly lossy codec. one I can= use everyday to edit on with bare drives, over gigabit if I need to without= having huge problems. DV50 was a great SD codec, but we never had DV200 HD.=  4:2:2 full raster is good enough for everyday 
Here's a tip for you:= use AE's Cineon Converter utility to convert Lin-Log with zero Softclip (hi= ghlight rolloff), and save as QuickTime Photo-JPEG at around 90-95. Now you h= ave what is effectively a 10-bit file that's completely x-plat compatible (M= ac, Win, Lin, Irix, OS2, etc.), inverts back to linear and/or can hold out o= f range black or white values (you can premult and use the old "matte on sup= er-black" trick), is pretty close to visually lossless, and is available to y= ou right now at no cost.

that= s a great idea... except my world doesn't just revolve around AE.  I ca= n't set my camera to output that, I can't hand it to a client and expect the= m to know what to do, other apps won't work with that material very well, ec= t. Its cool it can work, and in a closed environment where everyone understa= nds the workflow, sure.

steve o


= --Apple-Mail-7DBCB9CE-B750-412B-BF2B-B7DA386E5218--