| ||||||||||
| One codec i'm curious about is SheerVideo: http://www.bitjazz.com/en/products/sheervideo/ From the site: With its direct lossless support for all professional pixel formats for digitized film & synthetic imagery (RGB[A]) and video (Y'CbCr[A]), both with and without alpha, in high (10-bit) and standard (8-bit) precision, full-range and video-range, uniformly sampled (4:4:4[:4]) and 1:2 chroma-subsampled (4:2:2[:4]); at any resolution, including HD (high definition) and SD (standard definition), NTSC, PAL, & SECAM; 4:3 & 16:9, progressive and interlaced, SheerVideo is the most versatile codec in the world. Support for 16-bit channels is coming soon too, to satisfy the needs of the most demanding expert. It's $100 a license if you buy over two. It sounds great, I'll likely test it. There's also a free read only codec. However, I've never come across it in professional settings, which always makes me nervous regarding it's longevity. -louai On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jim Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote: > I'm on Macs. > > I use ProRes with Quicktime and it's awesome, but it's reportedly not too Windows-friendly, without hacks. > > DNxHD is 10-bit, 4444, and free, but not versatile, since it's restricted to a set of frame sizes and frame rates. e.g., you can't make a 300x300 pixel pre-render for use as an element in Ae; you're stuck with PAL, NTSC and HD frame sizes and rates. I think Avid made it much more complicated than necessary. > > I discovered one that looks interesting, called "UT Video." It seems to have the right specs: It's free, alpha support, 4444, but it's only 8-bit, which is a downside. > > I've looked at Cineform, but it's not been totally stable for me, and it's not free, which means it's not universal. > > A lot of people recommend QT Photo-JPEG at 92% quality. No alpha. Not sure of the bit-depth. > > There's also QT PNG, but I don't use it, because ProRes is more efficient. It supports alpha. > > Wasn't Adobe working on a Cinema PNG format? For BMD cameras? What's up with that? > > All these I mentioned aren't lossless, although most are visually lossless. Some lossless codecs shouldn't even be called "codecs" because there's no compression and decompression taking place. It's a term akin to "married bachelor." It's a contradiction. > > I'm interested to read other insights on this as well. > > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Louai Abu-Osba wrote: > >> Hey All, >> >> I'm generally curious what everyone is using for a lossless codec these days. >> I'm also specifically looking for a Windows friendly, resolution >> independent lossless codec in either an avi or mov container. >> >> -louai >> >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> |
