Return-Path: Received: from atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com ([209.17.115.46] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5153625 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:44:13 +0200 Received: from atl4webmail24 ([10.30.71.181]) by atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6O1tRwb007433 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:55:27 -0400 Received: from 203.192.166.174 (chris@chriszwar.com [203.192.166.174]) by atl4webmail24 (Netsol 11.2.30) with WEBMAIL id 29514; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:55:27 +0000 From: "Chris Zwar" To: "After Effects Mail List" Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: X-Mailer: Network Solutions Webmail, Build 11.2.30 X-Originating-IP: [203.192.166.174] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] X-Authenticated-UID: chris@chriszwar.com Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:55:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [AE] lossless codec in a container roundup MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Robert Kjettrup [mailto:robert@stvmayday.dk] It looks like it has all the features needed in production so what is hol= ding it back? The quality of something doesn't relate to market acceptance, not sure if= it's marketing 101 or economics 101 or something else, but there are ple= nty of examples out there where better technology has failed. Commonly c= ited examples are VHS over Beta, the QWERTY keyboard layout, and if you'r= e up for a flame war then you can try Mac vs Windows, x86 chips vs all ot= her architectures and so on. The acceptance of a video codec is primarily determined by video editors = and content distributors. Practically all video editors either use Final= Cut or Avid and so in production all you will commonly find is ProRes or= an Avid codec. For distribution then MPEG2 and h264 are used profession= ally, but even the popularity of torrents has made xvid in mkv containers= relatively common. It doesn't matter how amazing a new codec will be, gaining mainstream acc= eptance will be a real struggle as long as there is no impetus to change = from the current way of doing things, even MP3 is still a common audio fo= rmat. If the BBC can't get their own codec more widely accepted then the= re's little hope for alternatives that don't even have a springboard to l= aunch from. Something new will need to fill a market niche. A new codec that has all= the features of ProRes 4444 but is cross platform will be welcomed, espe= cially by windows users. But (just as a an example) a new codec that is = just like ProRes 422 but is Mac only won't succeed, because there's no re= ason to use it and not ProRes 422 even if it is open source and free. Ge= tting everyone to change the way they work, and to get editors to move aw= ay from established workflows will require more than an open source licen= ce. -Chris