Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5146712 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 20:36:52 +0200 Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id n1so1891721qcx.36 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=n3iP5XwQrWcW7LWpmi2dc24FK8k/Aa2wFZFl4m2XbGw=; b=bgwUm8/W8Y8lVYZhXzfRB+sU4yTjwvao7m8BytWwmfWJjbZuQVZM1Pt9UfVPj5zhGT VDmafhOHqCpo7A05qbu1IhP4deOUjxfOHLvCF78blNsulMhQvr9lBW1598wCmLgxHKQn D5TIZl7hVACPyQK4IPl/INe7xhkQmsUnTtyaR+H+A4VikUX84Rk5DwtWGzfmQPVDUW13 DpWDHRTEyYUTMqkoU20Q8XTt+nr1fxi+V1FHt8OBPRiDZfyHwAJnGu21Omb+ffBYzI3Q qj7RGQfaP7ZIPnzK0cLzHbBCvdHPBAl+Lf/4wqTFzkj0y2GpkrBSEnjb+DyNEREcT3lZ Ootw== X-Received: by 10.224.79.70 with SMTP id o6mr15204462qak.97.1374173275876; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:47:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.49.64.194 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:47:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:47:15 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] lossless codec in a container roundup To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca7dcf80cb204e1cda535 --047d7bdca7dcf80cb204e1cda535 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Oh boy, another mac vs. pc codec thread. How exciting. Steve: not everyone can afford a $5,000 mac pro with half the render power of an equivalent PC. Neither system is perfect. Use the tools you need to get the job done. There's always a solution. -TG On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > welcome to why, despite trying, windoze PC's are a huge problem to fit > into production thats been mac based. cross platform modern codecs are > simply non-existant once you go thru the check list of - any frame size, > any FPS, deep color, alpha, and maybe a couple compressions settings AND > affordable when talking about multiple installs and being common enough > that you don't have exchange problems. Lets also not forget the other big > one, full documentation of the codec so anyone can write an encoder/decoder > 20 years from now to read the file. > > sure you can get a super fast PC cheap loaded, but then when you need to > render out to AE you suddenly find your self doing something dopey like > have to render a TIFF sequence to have deep color + alpha to edit it into a > show being cut on mac. ya you could convert that to ProRes once its on the > mac, but that is totally NOT the point. > > h.264 could actually be the answer if it wasn't for the patent landmines > attached to it. it certainly supports everything everyone needs ( HDcam SR > is h.264 ), is documented, cross platform... but > > there is the BBC codec dirac which may fit the bill, but no one has really > jumped on it. > > so here we sit 15 to 20 years into computers doing video and we STILL > don't have a common codec w/o issues. beyond pathetic. > > S > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Jim Curtis wrote: > > > You're smart to be nervous. I mastered a lot of projects on Digital > Anarchy's Microcosm. And I don't want to get fooled again. > > > > I'm concerned about all proprietary codecs. Especially from small > companies, and even Avid, since their stock is so volatile, and they seem > to verge on bankruptcy way too much. > > > > What we all need is an open-source, cross platform, high bit depth, > alpha supported codec. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Louai Abu-Osba wrote: > > > >> 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 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> +---End of message---+ > >>> To unsubscribe send any message to > >> > >> +---End of message---+ > >> To unsubscribe send any message to > > > > > > +---End of message---+ > > To unsubscribe send any message to > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --047d7bdca7dcf80cb204e1cda535 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh boy, another mac vs. pc codec thread. How exciting= . Steve: not everyone can afford a $5,000 mac pro with half the render powe= r of an equivalent PC. Neither system is perfect. Use the tools you need to= get the job done. There's always a solution.
-TG


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Steve Oakley <<= a href=3D"mailto:steveo@practicali.com" target=3D"_blank">steveo@practicali= .com> wrote:
welcome to why, despite trying, windoze PC&#= 39;s are a huge problem to fit into production thats been mac based. cross = platform modern codecs are simply non-existant once you go thru the check l= ist of - any frame size, any FPS, deep color, alpha, and maybe a couple com= pressions settings AND affordable when talking about multiple installs and = being common enough that you don't have exchange problems. Lets also no= t forget the other big one, full documentation of the codec so anyone can w= rite an encoder/decoder 20 years from now to read the file.

=A0sure you can get a super fast PC cheap loaded, but then when you need to= render out to AE you suddenly find your self doing something dopey like ha= ve to render a TIFF sequence to have deep color + alpha to edit it into a s= how being cut on mac. ya you could convert that to ProRes once its on the m= ac, but that is totally NOT the point.

h.264 could actually be the answer if it wasn't for the patent landmine= s attached to it. it certainly supports everything everyone needs ( HDcam S= R is h.264 ), is documented, cross platform... but

there is the BBC codec dirac which may fit the bill, but no one has really = jumped on it.

so here we sit 15 to 20 years into computers doing video and we STILL don&#= 39;t have a common codec w/o issues. beyond pathetic.

S

On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Jim Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote:

> You're smart to be nervous. =A0I mastered a lot of projects on Dig= ital Anarchy's Microcosm. =A0And I don't want to get fooled again.<= br> >
> I'm concerned about all proprietary codecs. =A0Especially from sma= ll companies, and even Avid, since their stock is so volatile, and they see= m to verge on bankruptcy way too much.
>
> What we all need is an open-source, cross platform, high bit depth, al= pha supported codec.
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Louai Abu-Osba wrote:
>
>> 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 format= s
>> for digitized film & synthetic imagery (RGB[A]) and video (Y&#= 39;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, includin= g HD
>> (high definition) and SD (standard definition), NTSC, PAL, & S= ECAM;
>> 4:3 & 16:9, progressive and interlaced, SheerVideo is the most=
>> versatile codec in the world. Support for 16-bit channels is comin= g
>> 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= 9;ll likely
>> test it. There's also a free read only codec. However, I'v= e never come
>> across it in professional settings, which always makes me nervous<= br> >> 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&#= 39;s restricted to a set of frame sizes and frame rates. =A0e.g., you can&#= 39;t make a 300x300 pixel pre-render for use as an element in Ae; you'r= e stuck with PAL, NTSC and HD frame sizes and rates. =A0I think Avid made i= t much more complicated than necessary.
>>>
>>> I discovered one that looks interesting, called "UT Video= ." It seems to have the right specs: =A0It'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 sta= ble for me, and it's not free, which means it's not universal.
>>>
>>> A lot of people recommend QT Photo-JPEG at 92% quality. =A0No = alpha. =A0Not sure of the bit-depth.
>>>
>>> There's also QT PNG, but I don't use it, because ProRe= s is more efficient. =A0It supports alpha.
>>>
>>> Wasn't Adobe working on a Cinema PNG format? =A0For BMD ca= meras? =A0What's up with that?
>>>
>>> All these I mentioned aren't lossless, although most are v= isually lossless. =A0Some lossless codecs shouldn't even be called &quo= t;codecs" because there's no compression and decompression taking = place. =A0It's a term akin to "married bachelor." =A0It'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 los= sless codec these days.
>>>> I'm also specifically looking for =A0a Windows friendl= y, resolution
>>>> independent lossless codec in either an avi or mov contain= er.
>>>>
>>>> -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>
>>
>> +---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>


+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn
--047d7bdca7dcf80cb204e1cda535--