Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Suggest the best codec for NASA online stock footage

Ed Watkins

Ed Watkins

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
668
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
www.naturalscinema.com
Hi all,

I've been asked by an editor at NASA what the most useful codec would be for video producers. NASA are currently in the process of re-assessing how they display, and offer, all their public domain stock footage online. Take into consideration that server storage space is limited (so uncompressed is out), and most of their footage is shot on the Varicam, and HVX200.

If you want to have your voice heard, let me know what your preferences are and why, and I'll pass them on.

Thanks!
 
I think Apple ProRes is the current stock video codec of choice.. it is comparable to the AVID's proprietary "loseless" codec. It can be used directly for broadcast video. The downside is that it takes longer to encode than most formats. It is supported for both Mac/PC these days.

~Sarah
 
LilRed said:
I think Apple ProRes is the current stock video codec of choice.. it is comparable to the AVID's proprietary "loseless" codec. It can be used directly for broadcast video. The downside is that it takes longer to encode than most formats. It is supported for both Mac/PC these days.

~Sarah
Click to expand...

How is it supported by PCs? I remember seeing some type of decoding/transcoding program from Apple about a month ago, but for some reason I thought that was simply a way to uncompress or transcode the footage into some other codec. Can NLEs like Avid and Premiere actually work with native ProRes on a PC?
 
For distribution to public: Flash video On2 VP6 (.flv)
For storing: Apple Quicktime ProRes.
 
Isn't ProRes supported only on about 2% of computers out there? :sarcasm:

My vote is JPEG2000.
 
That's a decoder only. This means all PC users have to transcode it, which defeats the purpose.
shake_head.gif


For all intents and purposes ProRes is proprietary format and is only supported on Apple computers. For a government agency, like NASA, to offer a proprietary codec that is supported on only tiny fraction of computers out there would be plain silly and inappropriate.

JPEG2000 is as good or better and it is not propriatary. It is also well supported on any OS.
 
If it's originated on Varicam and HVX, then keep it simple.

DVCPro HD. Game, set, match.

Why? The datarate for ProRes SQ is 145 Mbps. HQ is 220 Mbps. DVCPro HD is 100Mbps. Re-encoding at a higher datarate does absolutely nothing but waste disk space.

Also, encoding is bad.

DVCPro HD is supported in FCP, Premiere, Avid, there are standard HD-SDI decks for it, Windows and Mac work with it equally well.

So, again.

DVCPro HD.
 
AngusChandler said:
DVCPro HD is supported in FCP, Premiere, Avid, there are standard HD-SDI decks for it, Windows and Mac work with it equally well.
Click to expand...

Just don't use Final Cut Pro's $!%#$ing DVCPRO-HD Quicktime codec because it's Mac only. Apple doesn't allow PCs to read FCP DVCPRO-HD Quicktimes.

If you use Avid's DVCPRO-HD codec then at least everyone can read it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Thanks for all the replies so far guys, your answers pretty much mimic the exact thought process I've been having.

I like ProRes but it is proprietary, and Final Cut DVCPRO-HD doesn't work with Avid.

Pawel, can you tell me a bit more about jpeg2000? I've not used it before, how do you encode to it, is it compatible with Avid/FCP etc..

Thanks!
 
JPEG2000 is a still image file format.

I agree with the prior posters, if it is captured in DVCPRO HD, leave it in DVCPRO HD... no reason to mess with it; there is nothing to be gained...
 
Photo JPEG at 95% quality is what many stock houses use.
 
Tom said:
Photo JPEG at 95% quality is what many stock houses use.
Click to expand...

AFAIK Mjpeg A looks much better than Photo JPG! Still an old, inefficient format though.

For public use they'll HAVE to take a codec that is either in the standard Quicktime package or some good FLV.

I like the 2 versions way. One for the amateur, say H.264 or FLV-HD (like vimeo quality) at first.
For the pros, high quality MJPG or Jpg2000.

Since a lot of it will be used with vfx, and every editing program should be able to read it, a single frame based codec seems the better choice.
 
Ed Watkins said:
Pawel, can you tell me a bit more about jpeg2000? I've not used it before, how do you encode to it, is it compatible with Avid/FCP etc..

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Ed,

JPEG2000 is a high quality frame based codec. Like REDCode, it uses wavelet compression, which visually looks excelent compared to block based codecs. It features excellent quality/size ratios. It also supports lossless compression.

It is compatible with Avid/FCP/Adobe/PC/Mac/Linux...and just about any editing, composing, grading program out there. It is well supported. It is ISO standard.

Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
 
Hi Ed do you know when NASA will start using RED?

as for distribution to public I definitely prefer mp4 H.264 codec but with good encoding
 
Pawel Achtel said:
Ed,

JPEG2000 is a high quality frame based codec. Like REDCode, it uses wavelet compression, which visually looks excelent compared to block based codecs. It features excellent quality/size ratios. It also supports lossless compression.

It is compatible with Avid/FCP/Adobe/PC/Mac/Linux...and just about any editing, composing, grading program out there. It is well supported. It is ISO standard.

Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
Click to expand...

What are the downsides? I have been thinking about working more with JPEG2000. It does seem to tax my CPU pretty heavily.
 
Hawaj said:
Hi Ed do you know when NASA will start using RED?

as for distribution to public I definitely prefer mp4 H.264 codec but with good encoding
Click to expand...


I can't talk for them, but currently they are mostly Panasonic based.

That said, I will be doing some test shoots with them in the new year with the RED to test its viability for Science on a Sphere (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/visitor/exhibits/sphere.html) a 4K spherical projection system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top