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 5473312 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 14 May 2014 19:09:08 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.100] (75-135-165-0.dhcp.stpt.wi.charter.com [75.135.165.0]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MTjeS-1WKG7V0HL6-00RDdn; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:09:06 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B318D8FB-8819-4D4B-8A22-717D2CDAC9FB" Message-Id: <22E247F8-88FA-4052-9E79-5C469AE861A0@practicali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Subject: Re: [AE] Lossless movie format Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:09:04 -0500 References: To: After Effects Mail List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:/PvjtDv27ZGmDuatNQa1nW6G5RBhx6iOwnDYNBuadNO 6maTAVPUtAbgJIaS3K5+WKqiYi5b5+isthCVMm6sNw0BDsKROY vYjGbwHUjUcf9DXCun7SDh7QKhQemzduPuei2lQwHiF4bLreBR /qYKKe+dGwyG/+fMCW6sf4/Btsp2MGNFpXA/QkdJKyes9HQnv1 BYYYYDL2ISFs2YWurAUuOzDQ8SeT8tovi8+RsKfkJPdh1RmQPd EU0+8E3/kq6sFubGM82s9ZP9ZqzrtpkSATvtRPaLM5AHPPqZ/B Eh1FGI1llE5g1wDaHuwhKK/2VsRmCxRhyPiCwFg1TmE/IhSzY3 8Hnpl6IkUJWCgYe1ZTtRbDpy1MMA8WQ2vSdu/irQ/mWvzmkVNJ e6w1rKrz/BsQA== --Apple-Mail=_B318D8FB-8819-4D4B-8A22-717D2CDAC9FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I understand that. lets say I *pay* for a h.264 codec from vendor. the = new format should be in some respects like QT, its a container for data. = if I install a codec, then the data can be turned into picture. I'm not = asking for explicit h264/5, but rather the option it can be in the = container. having some built in standard codecs is great but what = happens when some spiffy new codec shows up a year from now that we all = might want to use ? if there is a codec component like QT, its an easy = install. if its purely built into the libs for POM then adding it = require an update of POM rather than just installing the codec into = POM's codec component folder. Dirac is an interesting codec to be sure and could be a nice solution if = quality and speed is there. for a very long time I never trusted apple not to either kill ProRes, = come out with ProRes II, or in some way horribly screw it up. However, = with the wide adoption of ProRes into cameras and even some PC based = products its become its own monster. its hard to picture that at some = point they don't release some spec for it or really license it more = freely / cheaply including more options for PC that aren't limited to = only specifc apps. Steve Oakley 920 544 2230c steveoakley.net=20 DP =95 Sound =95 Colorist =95 Editor=20 NY/LA/WI/ Where ever you fly me On May 14, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Brendan Bolles = wrote: > On May 13, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: >=20 >> well h.264 is an interesting question. while often thought of as a = very compressed long GOP format, it can be iframe, 10/12+ bits, 4:2:2 = and 4:4:4 with a high enough bit rate to be near lossless.=20 >>=20 >> while the format you propose would like to directly avoid any patent = encumbered technology, having it be open enough that a suitable h.264/5 = codec could be added might well turn out to be a critical item in = getting wider usage. another developer could bring in a suitable codec = component.=20 >>=20 >> ditto ProRes as odd as that might sound given its widespread use in = cameras and recorders. >=20 >=20 > I'm afraid I'm going to be a stickler on the patent issues. = Theoretically a studio using H.264 in production might have to pay MPEG = LA for the privilege of doing so. Anyone making commercial software = that uses H.264 definitely must pay MPEG LA. I think that's a deal = breaker that would prevent POM from gaining traction. >=20 > The ProRes situation is less clear. There may not be any patent = issues and Apple only warns against unauthorized implementations because = it that are not given their seal of approval. FFmpeg has a ProRes = encoder/decoder, and it may be possible to duplicate it without = violating the GPL license attached to it. >=20 > What I'm really hoping for is the Dirac codec works well enough that = we forget all about H.264 and ProRes. >=20 >=20 > Brendan >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to --Apple-Mail=_B318D8FB-8819-4D4B-8A22-717D2CDAC9FB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 I = understand that. lets say I *pay* for a h.264 codec from vendor. =  the new format should be in some respects like QT, its a container = for data. if I install a codec, then the data can be turned into = picture. I'm not asking for explicit h264/5, but rather the option it = can be in the container. having some built in standard codecs is great = but what happens when some spiffy new codec shows up a year from now = that we all might want to use ? if there is a codec component like QT, = its an easy install. if its purely built into the libs for POM then = adding it require an update of POM rather than just installing the codec = into POM's codec component folder.

Dirac is an = interesting codec to be sure and could be a nice solution if quality and = speed is there.

for a very long time I never = trusted apple not to either kill ProRes, come out with ProRes II, or in = some way horribly screw it up. However, with the wide adoption of ProRes = into cameras and even some PC based products its become its own monster. = its hard to picture that at some point they don't release some spec for = it or really license it more freely / cheaply including more options for = PC that aren't limited to only specifc = apps.

Steve Oakley

920 544 = 2230c
DP =95= Sound =95 Colorist =95 Editor 
NY/LA/WI/ Where ever you = fly me

On May 14, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Brendan Bolles <brendan@fnordware.com> = wrote:

On May 13, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Steve Oakley = wrote:

well h.264 is an interesting = question. while often thought of as a very compressed long GOP format, = it can be iframe, 10/12+ bits, 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 with a high enough =  bit rate to be near lossless.

while the format you propose = would like to directly avoid any patent encumbered technology, having it = be open enough that a suitable h.264/5 codec could be added might well = turn out to be a critical item in getting wider usage. another developer = could bring in a suitable codec component.

ditto ProRes as odd = as that might sound given its widespread use in cameras and = recorders.


I'm afraid I'm going to be a stickler = on the patent issues.  Theoretically a studio using H.264 in = production might have to pay MPEG LA for the privilege of doing so. =  Anyone making commercial software that uses H.264 definitely must = pay MPEG LA.  I think that's a deal breaker that would prevent POM = from gaining traction.

The ProRes situation is less clear. =  There may not be any patent issues and Apple only warns against = unauthorized implementations because it that are not given their seal of = approval.  FFmpeg has a ProRes encoder/decoder, and it may be = possible to duplicate it without violating the GPL license attached to = it.

What I'm really hoping for is the Dirac codec works well = enough that we forget all about H.264 and = ProRes.


Brendan


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

= --Apple-Mail=_B318D8FB-8819-4D4B-8A22-717D2CDAC9FB--