From: "Teddy Gage" Received: from mail-ot1-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTPS id 7248042 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 19:06:50 +0100 Received: by mail-ot1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 98so45830022oty.1 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:17:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3kqhy6euTBjgoPDMx1dXiVRaEQt3B9u99278F302tK8=; b=tNQXO7ZoSyvMZPk/pl9YxdNQa+f17OEc5DWfKUorHRKkwuvaQe8ku/eP2pgSvsXIyv cBaLB4KLVg5wQ1/0cnKFHDxDsweyYG5/xmOEyXw24Uai9Y2o0x9aCtPh5q7oe8ZI8zuH HdstELAmss6NPUYyjC33gm6DdtRwxGqckF6/r7ymH297GU8lc69UBSbT3j4idjexaKy7 T4wVimDFgWLCv5bJuoVtMmW0yArqHUBgrDoZ/HRpuEjznTMMDI+KUFlV7uGLAw3NRsul yfeiY4k7xW2ITDuGcXQANV5EQ2+LHOGN+/uPyhr0lR/pf7AW8RtSa5dhNT0wTKwz9UBH G74w== 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=3kqhy6euTBjgoPDMx1dXiVRaEQt3B9u99278F302tK8=; b=JWhHyqWt6EmV/HyFhUnDE1UuYmWSSVYWLleomfnK3bWjfRscrdVSjhlwV44yWr/YWR y6MCoLIUomQdmz9p1so+E1OeFioUNvl94qQsqcUWmtBUl8Moi4rKV4josv0XwZ9A8w1+ 9P3VM3MEdP1lDTBPN+hD1HaU+yQL4eXwBKHSwNFsbiSioeq+6WYcHvXpfbdigOpgcv7y MTTTahh+ItwHPpOgAfqb6MCJZ0rNQVi7JRwQX4cgcBrlanT5i36s2NWsgjqvliocO9jo HyXmtv8N+MqJD1bBWhxyA70lTIwEx85sQRh0T/AaGynViQnAvHNZGrZov+gl/qn0m3JX TTbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubuoipTN3O90VD/JR1tBKvsrsbZIQ9cIBnA7WcA6/5Yllbi+QH3 eA10fVxnrbHMsTeV0GX/8FAZl5YFOtIAfXx1JzkKpw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZJO6+RB4wY/ybTNj0lCfjqUVlBpl7VRGCb2MtkaWuG2lqDDZTyqaOgX6Rvsy8AizG5+aY88oEXbLfMHlH5910= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:65c1:: with SMTP id z1mr5375554oth.277.1550773048652; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:17:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:16:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b138c905826b7cee" --000000000000b138c905826b7cee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If only MOX hadn't died we might not be having this conversation. Really wish someone could take over that project again, since it seems we have this conversation every couple months... On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:36 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 >>>> >>> --=20 _____________________________ Teddy Gage President Shotgun Inc. 360 VR | MOGRAPH | VFX SHOTGUNPOST.COM BKLYN NY 11215 --000000000000b138c905826b7cee Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If only MOX hadn't died we might not be having this co= nversation. Really wish someone could take over that project again, since i= t seems we have this conversation every couple months...

On Wed, Feb 20, 201= 9 at 11:36 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 option= s were different to PhotoJPEG.=C2=A0 The Apple PhotoJPEG codec - even when = used to make quicktime 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 desktop computer was with a custom video card.=C2=A0 The M= JPEG codes were written for those custom chips. I can't remember the ex= act details but it was something like MJPEGA was for C-Cube chips and MJPEG= B was for a different 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 information was half the bandwidth of the luminance) whil= e with the PhotoJPEG codec=C2=A0@ 100% the colour sampling was 4:4:4.=C2=A0= It's all a historical footnote now, anyway.

FWIW HA= P has it's purposes - a lot of the large scale projection projects I wo= rk on deliver HAP files - but the quality is pretty poor and it's nowhe= re near visually lossless.

I'm not sure that s= omething exists that meets all of Stephens requirements.=C2=A0 Without havi= ng done personal research, if you're not happy with any of the ProRes f= lavours (have you tried LT?) then I don't know if there's a viable = alternative.



On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:1= 8, Nick Fox-Gieg <AE-List@media-motion.tv> 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 pla= yback of > 4K.

Nick=C2=A0

On Wed, Feb 20, 2= 019, 11:06 PM Chris Zwar <AE-List@media-motion.tv wrote:
Steph= en what artefacts are you getting=C2=A0@ 100% quality?=C2=A0 I've alway= s thought - after being directly told by an Apple engineer - that JPEG at 1= 00% was practically lossless, and any differences were due to rounding erro= rs and not compression artefacts.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 13:33, Stephen van = Vuuren <AE-List@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



--
___________________________= __
Teddy Gage
President
Shotg= un Inc.
360 VR | MOGRAPH | VFX
<= /div>
--000000000000b138c905826b7cee--