| ||||||||||
| What codecs are you using Teddy? On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <steveo@practicali.com> 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 <jpcurtis@me.com> 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 <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> >> >> >> >> +---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 |
