From: "Nick Fox-Gieg" Received: from mail-io1-f50.google.com ([209.85.166.50] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTPS id 7247941 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 06:08:44 +0100 Received: by mail-io1-f50.google.com with SMTP id r136so458427iod.3 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 21:19:23 -0800 (PST) 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=MXJZmBb6sTUaq2Hw/7WgmDCS95jNKi6X/cLEDhkMl4I=; b=L9n7prXZlERsEsL8Sa30/k2jlnzd6wZ+UCGmQQleRHGMXXUtBHZQ1pJwLhkcNdIZLH 43YjjEzHKItGCfNv2MFHal06PaCrhMX1TMNMmMme59gAKNBIMLaXJ4o1nXDBREfGBGGR ztOlxelT9lzuuF1cSaH8f7Imb4oDDUh3WFu3tdfUwjfrjHWGguLAnoQTJcwHWKOPUJWr oPanUGGy10cKURIMozbquU/eBR0/5wF1pF8LB55+PTyAF9AHarPe8kD56olvK+pOFkca mABvAjmnv9wSqTB2yiBEf2YFMPIDnB0iExslyR57VTr8SVizYk50t9ZgoLMCkg7IhOst yt+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubLNDZcIYAoNXMSppLdlIcy6vrZsXjIp/vZ/wfm9LGszCx8BwaJ Dk6FMRNwH2qa4vp2rZ0sAGhpKMjjHOrUsHrzAWfeIPEF X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaQFYjk+jcOC4wVz1fh1O+YpHw7aGd2bSQDVURYmzzSF4SH2WFqcTjYi50n6KVtg25ZnMrbm8Pzy/ai9UFXSs8= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6b19:: with SMTP id g25mr24710546ioc.152.1550726361049; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 21:19:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:18:44 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e4ee330582609df4" --000000000000e4ee330582609df4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good catch--to clarify, the command switch for ffmpeg is mjpeg, but the codec being used is PhotoJPEG. I think you have to specify 444 vs. 422 encoding, instead of it kicking in automatically via the quality setting: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/VFX Nick On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:35 PM Chris Zwar wrote= : > I'm not that familiar with ffmpeg, but with the older (now obsolete) Appl= e > Quicktime codecs, the MJPEG options were different to PhotoJPEG. The App= le > PhotoJPEG codec - even when used to make quicktime files - was a standard > JPEG codec. The MJPEGA & MJPEGB codecs date back to the early 1990s, whe= n > 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-Cub= e > 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 < >>> AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote: >>> >>>> Teddy, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PhotoJPEG was a fail =E2=80=93 color & gamma shift, artifacts at 100% = quality. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 hour= s =E2=80=93 >>>> every 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 >>>> as 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 >>>> >>> --000000000000e4ee330582609df4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good catch--to clarify, the command switc= h for ffmpeg is mjpeg, but the codec being used is PhotoJPEG. I think you h= ave to specify 444 vs. 422 encoding, instead of it kicking in automatically= via the quality setting:

=
Nick

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:35 PM Chris Zwar <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:=
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 quicktime files - wa= s 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 desktop computer= was with a custom video card.=C2=A0 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 v= ice 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 information was h= alf the bandwidth of the luminance) while with the PhotoJPEG codec=C2=A0@ 1= 00% the colour sampling was 4:4:4.=C2=A0 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 q= uality is pretty poor and it's nowhere near visually lossless.

I'm not sure that something exists that meets all of S= tephens requirements.=C2=A0 Without having done personal research, if you&#= 39;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 <AE-List@media-motion.tv&= gt; 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=C2=A0

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 11:06 PM Chris Zwar <A= E-List@media-motion.tv wrote:
Stephen what artefacts are you getting= =C2=A0@ 100% quality?=C2=A0 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 <AE-Lis= t@media-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

--000000000000e4ee330582609df4--