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 :)

JPEG2000 in Adobe workflow?

Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
8,520
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Is it possible for me to use JPEG2000 encoding with AE and Premiere Pro CS3? I never see that as an option in any of my Adobe export menus.
 
nope unless you get some really nice encoder/decoder that works in realtime in premiere
 
mmmmm if redcode is a variant of jpeg 2000 (did I hear that here?), that would be like redcode in redcode out....interesting.
 
what about illustrator
 
karapetkov said:
D'you mean for final encoding or for realtime timeline working in PPro?
Click to expand...

I mean for real-time work in Premiere Pro CS3. I want a good, losssless codec that I can export from AE and work with in Premiere Pro.

Actually, I am able to do this. I can export a JPEG2000 MOV from AE, and drop it into my Premiere Pro timeline. If I set the quality of the JPEG2000 encoding to 100%, I cannot scrub or play the footage in my timeline in anything close to realtime. If I set the JPEG2000 compression to 95%, the file size drops by more than half! Plus it plays a better in my Premiere Pro timeline. Not in real time, but closer to real time than the 100% quality 1920x1280 JPEG2000 MOV.

I have my timeline monitor set to "Draft Quality". Is it my processor that is keeping me from working in "real time" with a 1920x1280 JGEG2000 MOV at 95% quality? I have a good video card - an 8800GTX with 756MBs onboard. I'm guessing it's my processor.

Another question: I have a Dell XPS 710. Can I simply buy a new quad-core processor for this thing? I don't want to buy a whole new computer just to get a faster CPU, but I feel like my CPU is really slowing me down in all my video work.
 
Yeah, I'm upgrading to a quadcore too.

Well, lossless codex are heavy beasts, especially at this resolution.

Why do you need the full quality files?

You can work with decent preview-quality proxies, and when it's all done - re-link with the 100 % quality files and only render the final output.
 
Tom said:
Is it possible for me to use JPEG2000 encoding with AE and Premiere Pro CS3? I never see that as an option in any of my Adobe export menus.
Click to expand...

Quicktime provides JPEG2000 compression. Therefore nn a Mac it is available for any Adobe product. I have to verify if that is available for Windows or not.
 
karapetkov said:
Why do you need the full quality files?

You can work with decent preview-quality proxies, and when it's all done - re-link with the 100 % quality files and only render the final output.
Click to expand...

Well my night star timelapses are very hard to compress, so I am always afraid of losing quality anywhere in the worflow. Maybe I'm a little paranoid about it. :)

I would rather not off-line unelss I absolutely had to - like working with 6K Canon 1Ds M3 files for an IMAX DMR or something. Then I would probably have no choice but to offline. Even then, I'd probably call up Cineform and see if they could get me a 6K version of Prospect. :)
 
Tom said:
Well my night star timelapses are very hard to compress, so I am always afraid of losing quality anywhere in the worflow. Maybe I'm a little paranoid about it. :)
Click to expand...


A-ah, now I see. We all are :meh:.

They're supposed to be in some kind of lossless RAW form from the DSLR, right? (sorry, don't know much about that workflow)

If you could export them in some kind of lossless codec - lagarith or huffyuv - maybe it will work. But it's gonna be huge.

If you could export from AE into lagarith, then you'll have the full-"negative" of it.

It's identical to being uncompressed.

Then you can make a nice 1080p version of the "negative", work with it, then relink to the original and render in full final quality.

Ahm, dunno, just guessing some possible route.

BTW, you do some killer lapses.
 
Tom said:
...I'd probably call up Cineform and see if they could get me a 6K version of Prospect. :)
Click to expand...

Although we call it "Prospect 4K", it is actually not limited at all in spatial resolution. But we don't do much testing beyond 4K - hence the name. We have seen some rendering issues to CineForm 444 at 4K and above because of the massive frame memory required. Give it a try and let us know what you think....
 
karapetkov said:
If you could export them in some kind of lossless codec - lagarith or huffyuv - maybe it will work. But it's gonna be huge.
Click to expand...

Both JPEG and JPEG2000 also come in lossless flavors. So they may also be use. Don't seem to remember what exact lossless algorithm(s) are used in JPEG and JPEG200 and how do they compare to lararith and huffyuv.

Additionally, some very new research has shown that the CCT used *before* typical lossy compressions such as MPEG-2/MPEG-4/H.264/JPEG/Wavelet/etc are not the most optimal, and better compression can be had using such methods. As a corollary RGB->YCbCr are not most optimal transforms, and even KLT for CCT is not the most optimal according to some research. (NOTE: Not to be confused with the optimality of KLT in de-correlation while doing transform coding, which is different than its use in CCT.)
 
David Taylor said:
Although we call it "Prospect 4K", it is actually not limited at all in spatial resolution. But we don't do much testing beyond 4K - hence the name. We have seen some rendering issues to CineForm 444 at 4K and above because of the massive frame memory required. Give it a try and let us know what you think....
Click to expand...

David, I have this insane idea about shooting an IMAX timelapse picture on a Canon 1Ds Mark III (14-bit 5616x3744 RAW frames) and doing post at near full res, with maybe a 10% downsample. Would this be feasible in Premiere Pro CS3? Does Premiere Pro CS3 have a spatial resolution limit? I don't think AE does at all.

If I processed my CR2 RAW files in AE, could I export them using the Cineform codec from AE at like 5K? Could these then be dropped into Premiere Pro CS3? If this was possible, doesn't your codec bascially extract a lower res proxy from the Cineform wavelet file, allowing me to edit in real time on a very high end machine, even if the files are "5K"?

Going back to the OP for moment, can anyone tell me what the major differences are between JPEG2000 and Photo JPEG as intermediate codecs for editing in an NLE? I understand that JPEG2000 is wavelet based, but is that a big advantage?
 
Your workflow is theoretically possible, but currently PPro has a 4K limit. If you want to use PPro for editorial then you would render (including DeBayer) from AE to 4K CineForm 444 files and use a 4K CF-444 workflow in PPro. This assumes the PPro memory problems don't cause the whole thing to come crashing down. But it's something you could test now.

If you don't use PPro for editorial, you could render from AE to 5K CF-444 files.
 
Yeah, but I would need an NLE at some point. :) I don't think I could cut a 40-minute film with music in AE. Although, if I could, I could work straight off the RAW files and might not need an intermediate.

Maybe CS4 will not have a spatial resolution limit? 4K is a small bottleneck if you are hoping for an eventual DMR to 15-perf IMAX film. :)

So, in terms of RAM, I would probably need a 64-bit system, huh? 4GBs just aint gonna cut it for that kind of data.
 
Joofa said:
Both JPEG and JPEG2000 also come in lossless flavors. So they may also be use. Don't seem to remember what exact lossless algorithm(s) are used in JPEG and JPEG200 and how do they compare to lararith and huffyuv.

Additionally, some very new research has shown that the CCT used *before* typical lossy compressions such as MPEG-2/MPEG-4/H.264/JPEG/Wavelet/etc are not the most optimal, and better compression can be had using such methods. As a corollary RGB->YCbCr are not most optimal transforms, and even KLT for CCT is not the most optimal according to some research. (NOTE: Not to be confused with the optimality of KLT in de-correlation while doing transform coding, which is different than its use in CCT.)
Click to expand...


Wow, thanks.

Actually I'm not that deep into codec technology, just wanna know what-is-what and what-does-what, in order to be able to get the most of the tools.
 
karapetkov said:
Wow, thanks.

Actually I'm not that deep into codec technology, just wanna know what-is-what and what-does-what, in order to be able to get the most of the tools.
Click to expand...

That is okay. Just made that comment because as of recently many people were able to decode Red's JPEG2000-similar compression, which gives me an indication that the pre-processing before transform coding is similar to the standard approach.

However, there exist some transforms that are shown to be better than standard and Red could have made use of them as they were doing "proprietary" compression. But apparently that is not the case. May be build 16 has chosen to use some of such methods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top