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 <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 playback of > 4K.

 

Nick 

 

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 11:06 PM Chris Zwar <AE-List@media-motion.tv wrote:

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 – color & gamma shift, artifacts at 100% quality.

 

Stephen

 

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

 

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 – every other codec was 14 to 22 minutes a frame.

 

Adobe and x265 simply don’t play in my experience.

 

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

 

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 <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

 

--

_____________________________

Teddy Gage

President

Shotgun Inc.

360 VR | MOGRAPH | VFX

SHOTGUNPOST.COM

BKLYN NY 11215