From: "Roei Tzoref" Received: from mail-it1-f170.google.com ([209.85.166.170] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.0) with ESMTPS id 7248472 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:38:53 +0100 Received: by mail-it1-f170.google.com with SMTP id z131so1916713itf.5 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:49:35 -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=L7Gd7g7hvvJ9oSCa4IKdaFI+XcLqn4NTPD0VwmlyosU=; b=Zr8uQtQ+Q6TjFGPQgFG/yl/HyZWyxD7mZacjaq0ekzTwrWCUbd1q6AsVk/TRJmoj4w aG/NK949mYY1OJewxCZjp3ZbL63lNBQg3+m9isQUekbM1hyiwO4DReTKaJ3Aimy7uyBQ j77/akgQgEzI/hB0GMdrVTEfEag2eIA4tJ2j7sk6BfM8fIQGLJSnGGq1IPHMUe0MWW86 Mmoi2nqRlEkNpCJ03Tq/3xcmraGg5WOgcHa0B1QhaFPpxVGq+hDIpYA3rlnwaggcLzYE Q8v8aVHwR+0IsNX72xoE31bE1iu0wLtJmTOsBxewryxYglP2huOeUURgv6lDAuZaN4KD sfEw== 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=L7Gd7g7hvvJ9oSCa4IKdaFI+XcLqn4NTPD0VwmlyosU=; b=RsjuugW/8Fh99KqMuv8vhU7t9f4NowrmRmoExEsh3LXkax8V4/SaZEZ3PbE+W15cy5 wrSywaML3xNAOzra6FzMfFUINfYuFeI65f+QKTwFWD+odctalDYHnomTg50qKZfxQdp3 qq+GtRzUAKwNnks38iDcnfPHw4JOvrxk4yD1o/MvRNCn6BM7pZQWl7rzXZa2OXhdBriz MF3bK0SnD98ZEuhgMSUAe45gUJ3/sqR7ahiC76JCOsOyQRibY14zo7OLGOJlWwYV3jiV 5NOhzlp9vTA3MV9Ylv5qoWPS/ss+HSq1Ye1eyfugAXc0XtkmhrBNe3t7XaFZn7SJAeqM vlNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZxvZummm6S0LLIGveNxZv0fkSgenZKh5uOH6dNmGIPqfvoyYg5 8A2oNlqCTH65ZKujG+ErCZpySm/TtOboHlscR2B/oA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ib9aWohtEXSJmdlrHLicQC8AS98/vd24xUwgIAiJYM8kjeDjjY4QAG6ask3zPkMmTHY3vTvkpI2Pg9TYyrgdt0= X-Received: by 2002:a24:1647:: with SMTP id a68mr1556753ita.130.1550825373423; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:49:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:49:21 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ddf9c058277abde" --0000000000007ddf9c058277abde Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephan I am confused since AME doesn=E2=80=99t have x.264, only H.264 with= a flavor of mainconcept and not x.264. On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 21:00 Nick Fox-Gieg wrote: > Fwiw I find a lot of banding issues in ffmpeg can be solved with an > initial ImageMagick pass to do the desired bit depth conversion before th= e > final encode. Means a whole other set of arcane command-line switches to > wrangle, but a powerful combo. > > > Nick > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Stephen van Vuuren < > AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote: > >> Chris, >> >> >> >> FFMPEG won=E2=80=99t resize the resize the various size PNGs for direct >> conversion using it natively. >> >> >> As for artifacts, PhotoJPEG in AE 2014 (the only version that will let m= e >> render to it is 2014, missing it all other versions), crushed the blacks= , >> shift the colors to red which likely is causing the encoder to alter the >> dithering in 8-bit i.e. rounding errors on a RGB value. >> >> >> >> Bottom line is very different image look where as all other codecs tried >> are 100% visually identical. >> >> >> >> *From:* After Effects Mail List >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:19 AM >> *To:* After Effects Mail List >> *Subject:* Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts >> >> >> >> 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) >> 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 wi= th >> a custom video card. The MJPEG codes were written for those custom chip= s. >> 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 sam= e >> level of quality. I can't recall the details but I think the MJPEG code= cs >> 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 project= s >> 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 happ= y >> with any of the ProRes flavours (have you tried LT?) then I don't know i= f >> 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% qu= ality. >> >> >> >> 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 t= ime >> (at least 100x) to build a frame. I gave up after 11 hours =E2=80=93 eve= ry 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 >> >> --0000000000007ddf9c058277abde Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stephan I am confused since AME doesn=E2=80=99t have= x.264, only H.264 with a flavor of mainconcept and not x.264.
<= div>
On= Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 21:00 Nick Fox-Gieg <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
Fwiw I find a lot of banding issues = in ffmpeg can be solved with an initial ImageMagick pass to do the desired = bit depth conversion before the final encode. Means a whole other set of ar= cane command-line switches to wrangle, but a powerful combo.


Nick

On Th= u, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Stephen van Vuuren <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:<= br>

Chris,

=C2=A0

FFMPEG won=E2=80=99t resize the resize the various s= ize PNGs for direct conversion using it natively.


As for artifacts, PhotoJPEG in AE 2014 (the only version that will let me r= ender to it is 2014, missing it all other versions), crushed the blacks, sh= ift the colors to red which likely is causing the encoder to alter the dith= ering in 8-bit i.e. rounding errors on a RGB value.

=C2=A0

Bottom line is very different image look where as al= l other codecs tried are 100% visually identical.

=C2=A0

From: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:19 AM
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Subject: Re: [AE] Visually lossless codec thoughts

=C2=A0

Good catch--to clarify, the command switch for ffmpe= g is mjpeg, but the codec being used is PhotoJPEG. I think you have to spec= ify 444 vs. 422 encoding, instead of it kicking in automatically via the qu= ality setting:

=C2=A0

Nick

=C2=A0

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:35 PM Chris Zwar <AE-List@media-moti= on.tv> wrote:

I'm not that familiar with ffmpeg, but with the = older (now obsolete) Apple Quicktime codecs, the MJPEG options were differe= nt to PhotoJPEG.=C2=A0 The Apple PhotoJPEG codec - even when used to make q= uicktime 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 MJPEG codes were written for those custom chips. I can't rem= ember the exact details but it was something like MJPEGA was for C-Cube chips and MJPEGB 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) while with= the PhotoJPEG codec=C2=A0@ 100% the colour sampling was 4:4:4.=C2=A0 It= 9;s all a historical footnote now, anyway.

=C2=A0

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.

=C2=A0

I'm not sure that something exists that meets al= l of Stephens requirements.=C2=A0 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.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 15:18, Nick Fox-Gieg <AE-List@media-moti= on.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 G= PU texture compression, designed for very fast playback of > 4K.<= u>

=C2=A0

Nick=C2=A0

=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% q= uality?=C2=A0 I've always thought - after being directly told by an App= le engineer - that JPEG at 100% was practically lossless, and any differenc= es were due to rounding errors and not compression artefacts.

=C2=A0

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@me= dia-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@media-motion.tv><= /u>


=C2=A0

--

____________________= _________

Teddy Gage

President

Shotgun Inc.

360 VR | MOGRAPH | VFX

BKLYN NY 11215

--0000000000007ddf9c058277abde--