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 :)

Interesting comparison between Prores 4444 and other codecs

Martin Weiss

Martin Weiss

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
56
Location
Switzerland/Norway/Germany
Website
weiss.no
http://thomasberglund.no/misc/codecwars09/

Compares quality and speed of various codecs.

I am so far pretty impressed with Apple's new ProRes 4444. It looks great, it is fast, and leaves the smallest footprint behind compared to BitJazz and Animation. ProRes 4444 is lossy though, which BitJazz and Animation are not. It remains to see how well ProRes 4444 handles color space conversions. Apple are well known for their gamma issues in QuickTime.
Click to expand...
 
the prores 4^4 has a lossless alpha channel, yes, however it still does floating point compression on the rgb the same as proresHQ
 
Not sure what the benefits of tests are?
Who cares if with a composite mode set to difference show difference, it is what we see with out eyes in the end.

I did what i would think is a more practical test when ProRes first came out. in After Effects i did a split screen with Animation on one side and ProRes on the other with an adjustment layer cranking the levels and Saturation all over the place, I could not see a difference!

Also i believe Animation is 422 isnt it.

Mark
 
I could not see a difference ... in my monitor

I could not see a difference ... in my monitor

Seen many discussions before about lossless, difference compositing and split screen comparisons, ...

I really think it would help push these discussions a step forward if we all start saying "could not see a difference in my monitor", and include in the explanation the monitoring conditions.

RED is a 12 bit camera and dynamic range and latitude are indeed very important factors of the RAW workflow. We often postproduce using computers for deliverables that are way more demanding than our computer monitors. Maybe the difference cannot be seen by some people on certain 8 bit computer monitors, ... maybe even on better monitors, ... but can we really claim there is no difference or the difference is lossless? ... What about a filmout of this compressed footage to 35mm for theatrical distribution? ... I'm pretty sure the difference there, in a dark room on a large screen is way more noticeable than what we could or could not see in our computers.


Daniel Perez
TREMENDO FILMS
 
BTW, I suspect DNxHD would exceed Prores's 4:2:2 results.

As for the not being able to see a difference on side-by-side on one's monitor, that's not very accurate. Like mentioned above, the better format may have considerably more image information, but it's being constrained by the monitoring system.
 
Animation is very much RGB. And better than that, it can also be RGBA.

I'm glad apple is addressing the need for an alpha channel and having an efficient 4444 codec around can't but be a good thing. I only wish one of the additions to the lineup had been a 4224 version.

The value of a difference comparison of lossy codecs over a visual comparison is the opportunity to see what exactly is happening even before it becomes visually apparent. What we are dealing with here is math. Every adjustment to the image, every process that moves between RGB and 422, log and linear, compressed and uncompressed, and codec to codec, introduces, lets say, rounding errors. And as Richard Pryor so succinctly showed us, lots of individual rounding errors can go relatively unnoticed. But when you start to pile them up on each other, suddenly, it can stand out very clearly.
 
People still use the animation codec? that is so 90's. Its an 8bit codec, what century is this.

The diff between 8bit and 10bit in a rgb/yiq is more substantial than any other broadcast or film bit difference. Yes HDCAM is 8bit etc.. etc.. but if your post is already 8bit you have already lost, you want the 10bit to 8bit squeeze happen at the last possible moment.
 
There's talk about ProRes being venerable to the gamma correction problem - this should be fixed soon, shouldn't it? Snow Leopard is changing its default gamma from 1.8 to 2.2, and there's the new Quicktime coming out, so it should be finally fixed!
 
Update

Update

Martin Weiss said:
http://thomasberglund.no/misc/codecwars09/

Compares quality and speed of various codecs.
Click to expand...

I have just added both Cineform NeoHD and DNxHD to the test, and I have written some additional thoughts.

I am certainly no codec expert, but I find the topic very interesting. Please let me know if there something I should correct or add.

Thanks :)
 
Thanks Thomas for the test.
 
Sorry I missed this post, it seems the CineForm codec was used in 4:2:2 mode as the data rate is way lower than I would have expected. When we see 8-bit RGBA data we assume (sometimes incorrectly) that the user only wants 4:2:2 -- 8-bit RGBA is such a common default is QT. The test show be done in AE's 16-bit mode for a 16-bit source TIFF. When we see pixel formats like 'b64a', a 16-bit RGBA format, we then default to 4:4:4:(4) encoding.
 
Bitjazz Sheer video kicks ass. I did an article and comparison a while back for another web site and it's a shame that such a great codec has basically been ignored by apple.

Sheer has always been better than anything Apple has been able to offer up. But Apple insists on ProRes. If Sheer was RT enabled in FCP (which would make it scream as an alternative to uncompressed or animation) I am certain it would take off like a rocket. Why? It is a fantastic codec for keying (one example only). Wait till we start seeing the compression artifact of prores Codec on keys, etc. That is when we will know if it is actually "pro"res.

Let's face it. We are out there shooting 4K RAW because we care about quality and an RT enabled Sheer codec in FCP would easily be my codec of choice because it is fast, it is lossless, it carries a small file size. All the image quality we look for in a codec.


David
 
David Battistella said:
If Sheer was RT enabled in FCP (which would make it scream as an alternative to uncompressed or animation) I am certain it would take off like a rocket. Why? It is a fantastic codec for keying (one example only).
Click to expand...

David, I tried the sheer and its much better than anything compressed...

But I couldn't make it work for capture from Blackmagic... if it could do capture only, it would be unbeatable... I have send them a question from their web site but I didn't get any answer... do they still work? I tried to call them non answer the phone... but again this was the case with Cineform... As you see Cineform is very alive and kicking...

I really believe that a LOSSLESS codec is very important part for the post production world...
 
I second the opinion about Sheer's quality, but I doubt anyone can make it RT on todays hardware.
 
Uli Plank said:
I second the opinion about Sheer's quality, but I doubt anyone can make it RT on todays hardware.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they could RT enable the codec if they did it for ProRes. The codec is also very fast internally but I am not sure what the limitation would be.

David
 
Uli Plank said:
I second the opinion about Sheer's quality, but I doubt anyone can make it RT on todays hardware.
Click to expand...

Evangelos Achillopoulos said:
David, I tried the sheer and its much better than anything compressed...

But I couldn't make it work for capture from Blackmagic... if it could do capture only, it would be unbeatable... I have send them a question from their web site but I didn't get any answer... do they still work? I tried to call them non answer the phone... but again this was the case with Cineform... As you see Cineform is very alive and kicking...

I really believe that a LOSSLESS codec is very important part for the post production world...
Click to expand...


I have captured it through a KONA and also through an I/O box as well. double check your settings.

I am sure Andreas will get to your call soon. He's a pretty busy guy. They are certainly alive and kicking.

RED could use this technology in their workflow. It would be great to render out of REDCINE-X to Sheer lossless codecs. That would be a great workflow.

Sheer is also possibly the most color accurate codec when going from RGB to YUV, another excellent advantage when moving footage around in post.

David



David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top