From: "Chris Zwar" Received: from mail-it1-f171.google.com ([209.85.166.171] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTPS id 7247921 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 05:24:42 +0100 Received: by mail-it1-f171.google.com with SMTP id r11so20577638itc.2 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:35:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chriszwar-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=A3G/uQb7mNhE6yuEwL2lCG9wV7uD+bSKkmK/Rft8sIo=; b=mp1aDHwj6/k/nQQiK9uY5EU+KS3J9AyBxhroeMwxUsnqSIG7CcbH0VfTmiFHlij0Dv DQgsk08cnmGWf5TC/ON7XXT4wNK+QuOJJI57fbXV8mg6SQJChhGxRc8NQxzQtdZioTVG NTNlY74lgKDgApGoIPXCIGs/B/y2K7S15ro/tW7E8wzoDcyzBtrN7n7FA4/B86isGi7v WOfXcNVRBNBUP5YtgFGwn5ZezQYC2X846NYuipmQafVOnYPzri9ymH4Dto7wFdbt96q0 deyT6beq2O9FSMuYQVbwBcOAZnkzM3Mcv82WnwNatBiMtXB6TJdv7K+xE9vpOUO4Ijts 0IIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=A3G/uQb7mNhE6yuEwL2lCG9wV7uD+bSKkmK/Rft8sIo=; b=Eytv75fc3JeVD/EzUU6bs6Gw6U7D0DV9EtYiw9g3sRVPPR58cKvZR5wyT1x1tXllMn r40f1bQnfJbRlddSQSHeVd9YcSGusBMf7/34kecWxEqxEWx1G8fOFn0AY0ZbAWTY1GqN socolGJvqszulX9ARgg6lVbQmWzpQY1KshLjDelVvBQRi9T1VcaTEjNDQhI3uMn8Mz/z yImG2ZSM+4UyEaj0OPba+w0kiRfYzyvXSmsXeuoILWjJd6WTYH8c6f21CzFQLvDdfrXG SaCkuSwWnC84MJJBR5CEfxLcYTNj5PwG9L1AhBKXsyzpb7RrQCd3VXOSAtgFz7t0WMP2 Qu/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua13l0V86jYe5ukjRiBZhebWvD12jJXIWPsgBrh5fU0vGXQKpu4 kHAUKiaQHkrc6l0g88zApe1dvzuaAYhnuL37aFeJu4bk X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZgIwjGFUJS8lDnln9/GE2j9J1L8lFRD9gPd4Fwv+iAetKgM22WZqiCNYFtgsJ2/0XwqxrWrPKxoz0gIoGklis= X-Received: by 2002:a02:284:: with SMTP id 126mr21208489jau.47.1550723719940; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:35:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:35:09 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078e90c058260002b" --00000000000078e90c058260002b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm not that familiar with ffmpeg, but with the older (now obsolete) Apple Quicktime codecs, the MJPEG options were different to PhotoJPEG. The Apple PhotoJPEG codec - even when used to make quicktime files - was a standard JPEG codec. The MJPEGA & MJPEGB codecs date back to the early 1990s, when the only way to play back video on a desktop computer was with a custom video card. The MJPEG codes were written for those custom chips. I can't remember the exact details but it was something like MJPEGA was for C-Cube chips and MJPEGB was for a different brand, or vice versa. The MJPEG algorithms were different to Photo JPEG and not capable of the same level of quality. I can't recall the details but I think the MJPEG codecs were always 4:2:2 (ie colour information was half the bandwidth of the luminance) while with the PhotoJPEG codec @ 100% the colour sampling was 4:4:4. It's all a historical footnote now, anyway. FWIW HAP has it's purposes - a lot of the large scale projection projects I work on deliver HAP files - but the quality is pretty poor and it's nowhere near visually lossless. I'm not sure that something exists that meets all of Stephens requirements. Without having done personal research, if you're not happy with any of the ProRes flavours (have you tried LT?) then I don't know if there's a viable alternative. On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:18, Nick Fox-Gieg wrote= : > I've had good luck with ffmpeg's PhotoJPEG (aka mjpeg) in the past. For > 8bpc also look at Hap--large file sizes, uses GPU texture compression, > designed for very fast playback of > 4K. > > Nick > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 11:06 PM Chris Zwar >> Stephen what artefacts are you getting @ 100% quality? I've always >> thought - after being directly told by an Apple engineer - that JPEG at >> 100% was practically lossless, and any differences were due to rounding >> errors and not compression artefacts. >> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:33, Stephen van Vuuren >> wrote: >> >>> Teddy, >>> >>> >>> >>> PhotoJPEG was a fail =E2=80=93 color & gamma shift, artifacts at 100% q= uality. >>> >>> >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* After Effects Mail List >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:59 AM >>> *To:* After Effects Mail List >>> *Subject:* Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts >>> >>> >>> >>> Did you try photo-jpeg in an mov? Definitely worth a test. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:48 AM Stephen van Vuuren < >>> AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote: >>> >>> X264 lossless and x265 are both fails. X264 at 10-bit, AE says is 8-bit= . >>> X265 take 10x time to render out in Media Encoder and takes an unknown = time >>> (at least 100x) to build a frame. I gave up after 11 hours =E2=80=93 ev= ery other >>> codec was 14 to 22 minutes a frame. >>> >>> >>> >>> Adobe and x265 simply don=E2=80=99t play in my experience. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* After Effects Mail List >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:57 AM >>> *To:* After Effects Mail List >>> *Subject:* Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts >>> >>> >>> >>> x264 has lossless compression methods and can also be 10bit. >>> >>> AfterCodec has support for 10bit and YUV 4:4:4, not the lossless mode a= s >>> far as i can see, but a high bitrate x264 should be better than the old >>> simpler DCT based Prores or DNxHR at comparable bitrates >>> >>> >>> >>> Now the question is if AE will import them correctly again. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.264 >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Den ons. 20. feb. 2019 kl. 09.08 skrev Evan Fotis Georgoulakis < >>> AE-List@media-motion.tv>: >>> >>> Personally I have the opposite experience, with Prores producing about >>> 20% larger files than same flavor Cineform. I tried CFYUV10bit. >>> >>> On 20-Feb-19 01:07, Teddy Gage wrote: >>> > Chris AFAIK cineform files are even bigger than Prores at the same >>> > flavor. >>> >>> >>> +---End of message---+ >>> To unsubscribe send any message to >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> _____________________________ >>> >>> Teddy Gage >>> >>> President >>> >>> Shotgun Inc. >>> >>> 360 VR | MOGRAPH | VFX >>> >>> SHOTGUNPOST.COM >>> >>> BKLYN NY 11215 >>> >> --00000000000078e90c058260002b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not that familiar with ffmpeg, but with the older = (now obsolete) Apple Quicktime codecs, the MJPEG options were different to = PhotoJPEG.=C2=A0 The Apple PhotoJPEG codec - even when used to make quickti= me files - was a standard JPEG codec.=C2=A0 The MJPEGA & MJPEGB codecs = date back to the early 1990s, when the only way to play back video on a des= ktop computer was with a custom video card.=C2=A0 The MJPEG codes were writ= ten for those custom chips. I can't remember the exact details but it w= as something like MJPEGA was for C-Cube chips and MJPEGB was for a differen= t brand, or vice versa.=C2=A0 The MJPEG algorithms were different to Photo = JPEG and not capable of the same level of quality.=C2=A0 I can't recall= the details but I think the MJPEG codecs were always 4:2:2 (ie colour info= rmation was half the bandwidth of the luminance) while with the PhotoJPEG c= odec=C2=A0@ 100% the colour sampling was 4:4:4.=C2=A0 It's all a histor= ical footnote now, anyway.

FWIW HAP has it's purpose= s - a lot of the large scale projection projects I work on deliver HAP file= s - but the quality is pretty poor and it's nowhere near visually lossl= ess.

I'm not sure that something exists that m= eets all of Stephens requirements.=C2=A0 Without having done personal resea= rch, if you're not happy with any of the ProRes flavours (have you trie= d LT?) then I don't know if there's a viable alternative.



On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:18, Nick Fox-Gieg <<= a href=3D"mailto:AE-List@media-motion.tv">AE-List@media-motion.tv> w= rote:
I've had good luck with ffmpeg's PhotoJPEG (aka mjpeg) in= the past. For 8bpc also look at Hap--large file sizes, uses GPU texture co= mpression, designed for very fast playback of > 4K.
Nick=C2=A0

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 11:06 PM Chris Zwar <AE= -List@media-motion.tv wrote:
Stephen what artefacts are you getting=C2= =A0@ 100% quality?=C2=A0 I've always thought - after being directly tol= d by an Apple engineer - that JPEG at 100% was practically lossless, and an= y differences were due to rounding errors and not compression artefacts.
On = Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:33, Stephen van Vuuren <AE-List@m= edia-motion.tv> wrote:

Teddy,

=C2=A0

PhotoJPEG was a fail =E2=80=93 color & gamma shi= ft, artifacts at 100% quality.

=C2=A0

Stephen

=C2=A0

From: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:59 AM
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion= .tv>
Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts

=C2=A0

Did you try photo-jpeg in an mov? Definitely worth a= test.

=C2=A0

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:48 AM Stephen van Vuuren = <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:

X264 lossless and x265 are both fails. X264 at 10-bi= t, AE says is 8-bit. X265 take 10x time to render out in Media Encoder and = takes an unknown time (at least 100x) to build a frame. I gave up after 11 hours =E2=80=93 every other codec was 14 to 22 minutes = a frame.

=C2=A0

Adobe and x265 simply don=E2=80=99t play in my exper= ience.

=C2=A0

From: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:57 AM
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion= .tv>
Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts

=C2=A0

x264 has lossless compression methods and can also b= e 10bit.

AfterCodec has support for 10bit and YUV 4:4:4, not = the lossless mode as far as i can see, but a high bitrate x264 should be be= tter than the old simpler DCT based Prores or DNxHR at comparable bitrates

=C2=A0

Now the question is if AE will import them correctly= again.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Robert

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Den ons. 20. feb. 2019 kl. 09.08 skrev Evan Fotis Ge= orgoulakis <AE-List@media-motion.tv>:

Personally I have the opposite experience, with Pror= es producing about
20% larger files than same flavor Cineform. I tried CFYUV10bit.

On 20-Feb-19 01:07, Teddy Gage wrote:
> Chris AFAIK cineform files are even bigger than Prores at the same > flavor.


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


=C2=A0

--

____________________= _________

Teddy Gage

President

Shotgun Inc.

360 VR | MOGRAPH | VFX

BKLYN NY 11215

--00000000000078e90c058260002b--