Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5146733 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 20:53:30 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.55] (71-13-195-18.static.eucl.wi.charter.com [71.13.195.18]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M6zbp-1UF3hg18eD-00xBUg; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:04:30 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33733E4E-A5DE-456B-9196-B555C1E82D8D" Message-Id: <7C9401AF-FE88-409C-8B36-1A917A2A9662@practicali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: [AE] lossless codec in a container roundup Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:04:28 -0500 References: To: "After Effects Mail List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:O2LCC27lo5hgjo/wmJg+os/FlSHm+pWCdO9unjjSJeA 7h/aDsHlgn0UcBRxiFNco+2ndpu6MtxTuNRgwxPuWCOwkQDzK5 l2apXk+zGsRjC7SFpeBtacb4zG9JA3klX/TX0NWYnQ4bb8xUcp cW2V5UEypmvaYGfn0XpY6fJy5ykFMq6nnwxz5P6hnevBkn68ew ZloCzyT0W2VVUp5w1UmAYxBiTlSQLLORzXhHrI6i6tayGiC37K yukAPSvKnDj6rytg+O30Ll+pb4Mda+IncCXz4AaOten22tce9t yiRlCRsh4en/p1juAfFUZ6iPqu+kTECv73j9cKLxKbFg/nv3ws iLLyEuSLp7HtzKg0cJnshPpBNc0elRxuPB8vSlxXo7ext5ryLF 8bvlr90IHHWgQ== --Apple-Mail=_33733E4E-A5DE-456B-9196-B555C1E82D8D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 respectfully, this is totally NOT a mac vs PC thing at all. its an open = evaluation of what does and does not work across the 2 platforms.=20 I had a $6k+ loaded Z800 here for several months that made the mac look = cheap. I really wanted it to work and integrate it in here. the codec = thing combined with networking problems simply made it come down to "the = cheaper PC" simply wasn't. there were too many deep workflow problems = very specifically with codecs that simply made it not worth the hassle. = I would be totally thrilled to have a sub $2K i7-6core machine or two = here, but its just not workable. perhaps I should say, the workarounds = to make it work simply are not time or cost effective. also have no = mistake, I hate the new mac pro with its lack of drive holes, PCIe 16X = slots, ect. I may well pick up a used mac tower or two on the used = market with the plan of keeping them running for 5+ years. S On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Teddy Gage 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.=20 > -TG >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 > there is the BBC codec dirac which may fit the bill, but no one has = really jumped on it. >=20 > 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. >=20 > S >=20 > On Jul 18, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Jim Curtis wrote: >=20 > > 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/ > >> =46rom 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 >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn --Apple-Mail=_33733E4E-A5DE-456B-9196-B555C1E82D8D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
S

On Jul 18, = 2013, at 1:47 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/
>> =46rom 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

= --Apple-Mail=_33733E4E-A5DE-456B-9196-B555C1E82D8D--