Something about Quicktime Codecs

[Cüneyt Kaya]

got it from here
http://people.csail.mit.edu/tbuehler/video/codecs/quicktime.html,

feel free to add, to talk about quicktime settings in relation to redcine/FCS2 (offline, uncompressed etc.), updates. whatever you like.


Quicktime

Many PC users have a lot of misconceptions about Quicktime. Some view it as "just for Macs," others seem to think it offers lower resolution than AVI. Quicktime is actually one of the oldest and most complex media architectures out there. Quicktime has also been adopted by most of the video production industry, and some video software (like Avid) use Quicktime as their basis. While AVI is rather simple, containing just one track of video and one track of audio, Quicktime files can contain all kinds of media, including multiple audio and video tracks (although since you're likely to not use these extra features, for the purpose of this guide I am just concentrating on Quicktime using one audio and one video track.) Also, the new MPEG-4 standard was based on Quicktime (much to Microsoft's chagrin).

Another difference between Quicktime and AVI is that with AVI, only a few (usually obsolete) AVI codecs come installed with Windows; the rest are developed by third parties and are installed individually. Quicktime does not have as much third-party support, yet it has a multitude of standard codecs, all of which are installed when a user installs Quicktime. So while a user may have to initially install Quicktime to view a file (not uncommon for PC users, which hampers Quicktime's compatibility), they then have the codecs to playback any Quicktime file (that is, until the new version of Quicktime is released. Quicktime has excellent backwards compatibility, with the newest version, Quicktime 6, still able to play files encoded using the very first release of Quicktime.

There are some weaknesses to Quicktime. One is the aforementioned issue that most PC users will have to install Quicktime once to view Quicktime movies. Another is that once installed, Quicktime Standard (the free download) occasionally bugs users on start-up to upgrade to the paid Quicktime Pro, which is quite annoying. A final weakness is that while Quicktime has a wealth of codecs, they are mostly specialized authoring codecs. It really could use some more delivery codecs.

Delivery Codecs

Sorenson Video 3
MPEG-4 Video
3ivx
H.263

Authoring Codecs

DV
Animation
Blackmagic 10-bit
Blackmagic 8-bit
Graphics
Motion-JPEG
PNG
None
Component Video

Legacy Codecs

Sorenson Video
Video
H.261
Cinepak

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Delivery Codecs


Sorenson Video 3 (Basic)
This is the most popular Quicktime codec and a favorite of many professionals. When making a Quicktime movie for delivery, Sorenson Video 3 should be thought of as the "default" codec. Sorenson Video 3 comes in two flavors, Basic and Pro. The Basic version is included with the Quicktime installer, and only provides basic controls such as data rate, keyframe rate, and frame rate. The Pro version provides many more options and better quality but costs several hundred dollars. You're more likely to encounter Basic, so for this test only the Basic version was used.

Quality: Very Good. Even at low data rates, artifacts are at a minimum. Its quality is competitive with the best AVI and Windows Media codecs.

Size: Good. Sorenson Video 3's achilles heel is its compression efficiency. Huge files result when its settings are maxed out, and it can be difficult to squeeze the file down to a comparable size that you would get with AVI or Windows Media.

Compatibility: Very Good. Anyone with Quicktime should be able to play it. A download may be required if the user doesn't have Quicktime, but Quicktime use has become rather widespread and it is only a one time download (when you install Quicktime once, then you can play any Quicktime file.)

Usability: Very Good. As stated above, there are only three controls available, and they are all fairly standard and easy to figure out. The main difficulty with Sorenson Video 3 is getting the file to a small enough size. It may require more than one try. Previous versions of Sorenson were infamous for being extremely slow, but thankfully Sorenson Video 3 is rather fast, although still slowly than many of its AVI equivalents.


MPEG-4 Video
One of the most awaited new features in Quicktime 6 is the inclusion of MPEG-4 encoding. While it is good for Quicktime to finally have some more delivery options, unfortunately the MPEG-4 codec is not as good as Sorenson 3 or the various MPEG-4 and pseudo-MPEG-4 AVI codecs. It's a bit of a disappointment, but granted, this is only the first version. Hopefully it will get better in the future.

Quality: Good. Blockiness is visible at even moderate data rates. Not as good as other MPEG-4 codecs out there.

Size: Good. Comparable to Sorenson Video 3's size at most data rates. Ridiculously large at higher data rates (this is also a CBR codec). It does not provide the tiny file sizes that the AVI MPEG-4 codecs are somehow able to achieve.

Compatibility: Very Good. It is MPEG-4 compliant (unlike other "MPEG-4" codecs, I'm looking in your direction, Microsoft), so if the powers that be ever figure out an application to use MPEG-4 in, then videos using these codecs will work. It also behaves as a regular Quicktime movie.

Usability: Good. Not as idiot-proof as the other MPEG-4 codecs. You'll just have to do some math to figure out the bit rate you need to get your desired file size before you do the encoding. Encoding time is noticeably slower than other MPEG-4 codecs, and a little slower than Sorenson Video 3.


3ivx
The 3ivx package installs both a Quicktime and a AVI version of the codec. See the AVI entry for 3ivx for more info.


H.263
This codec is actually a standard for videoconferencing but has been used for video as well. The appeal of it is that since it is a standard it can be played back by some non- Quicktime players (for example, all MPEG-4 compliant players also support H.263). In general, the quality is not as good as Sorenson Video 3, and this is due largely to the fact that its internal resolution is limited to either 352x288, 176x144, or 128x96. For any other resolution the codec must scale up, which it does rather well (especially with motion), although edges will usually appear blocky.

Quality: Good. Motion is smooth even at low data rates. Its big downside is that edges and non-moving objects appear blocky.

Size: Good. Better compression than Sorenson Video 3 at higher data rates, although as the data rate lowers, Sorenson narrows the gap.

Compatibility: Very Good. Theoretically better compatibility than other Quicktime codecs due to its nature as a video standard, but in all honesty most people are probably not using the players that can play H.263 without Quicktime, so Quicktime will probably have to be installed anyway.

Usability: Good. Basic data rate and quality slider are all you get. It doesn't allow much control, but it's also fairly idiot-proof.
Authoring Codecs


DV
DV isn't just a tape format; it's also a compression method. All DV camcorders and decks record to tape using DV compression. When you capture DV over Firewire, you're not actually digitizing the video but rather simply performing a file transfer of the DV compressed files. Since everything on a DV tape is compressed using DV compression, there is actually no such thing as "uncompressed DV," yet the term uncompressed DV is often casually used to refer to video that has not undergone any further compression besides its native DV compression.

If your footage originated on DV and was captured as Firewire, it is best to keep your project entirely in DV until you are finished. Only then should you compress to another format, such as with a delivery codec. By doing this you minimize any compression artifacts. While DV compression is very light, compression artifacts can occur, most commonly "stair-stepping" on diagonal lines and "mosquito noise" near high-contrast boundaries.

There are several DV codecs. Some are better than others, and some have some restrictions placed. Most DV codecs are AVI codecs (found in the AVI section of this guide) but there are a few Quicktime codecs.

DV-NTSC: This is the default DV codec that comes installed with Quicktime. Originally, this codec wasn't too good, although it is much better now. (A PAL version is also included with Quicktime).

Avid DV: Judged by most to be one of the best (if not the best) DV codec out there. Previous versions were tied to an Avid dongle, but thankfully Avid has decided to cut the codec free and now it can be installed on any machine for both encoding and decoding.


Animation
As the name implies, this codec is best used on animation, although it does all right on video as well. It primarily compresses long lines of identical horizontal pixels (which is why it's good for animation). At 100% the codec is lossless. Animation also has an alpha channel.


Blackmagic 10-bit
This codec is not installed with Quicktime but is available as a free download from decklink.com. The fact that it is a 10-bit uncompressed video codec is what makes it special. It was designed to be used with Decklink's high-end video capture cards, but it can be used on its own as well. Its 10-bit nature means that it is good for creating videos out of animations and stills where you want to preserve smooth gradients that may be otherwise lost using an 8-bit codec such as DV.


Blackmagic 8-bit
This codec is also installed with the Blackmagic 10-bit codec. While the 10-bit is useful on its own, there is no need to use the 8-bit codec without the Decklink hardware.


Graphics
I'll hand one thing to Quicktime, and that is that their codecs are very logically named. As the Animation codec is intended for animation, the Graphics codec is intended for�graphics! Well, only 8-bit graphics unfortunately, so its use is limited. Like animation, this codec is betting on you having long lines of the same color, otherwise you won't get much compression. There are no quality controls, and it's always lossless (in 8-bit color at least).


Motion-JPEG
M-JPEG is one of the oldest Quicktime authoring codecs. It was largely used as a capture codec for analog video back in the days before DV. Essentially, all it does is stores each field as its own 4:2:2 JPEG. The only control is a quality slider; 85% is usually visually lossless, 100% is lossless. There are two M-JPEG codecs: A and B. These were created to mesh with different chipsets that old video capture cards used (some were compatible only with A, some only with B). Nowadays, if you're using DV and not capturing to M-JPEG it doesn't matter which one you use.


PNG
A lossless, RGB format. It compresses more efficiently than Animation but does not use predictive frames, so video with long stretches of unchanging content may be better compressed with Animation. Best for RGB content.


None
Uncompressed RGB. The only advantage it has is that it is standard for DirectShow as well, so it can be used with DirectShow applications.


Component Video
Yet another uncompressed codec. This one is 4:2:2 and should be used with YUV content.
Legacy Codecs
Sorenson Video
Not to be confused with Sorenson Video 3, that 3 makes all the difference. Sorenson Video is actually version 2 of the Sorenson codec, and it is very much inferior to version 3. It uses an obsolete method of color sampling that causes blockiness, plus it takes a long, long, long, LONG time to encode.

Video
Here is where Quicktime's no-nonsense codec naming scheme falls apart. So, you want to compress a video? Hey look, there's a codec called Video, how convenient, that obviously must be the codec to use. Wrong! This is the original Quicktime codec and is hugely out-of-date (it was replaced by Cinepak, which is now out-of-date itself). It is inferior to other codecs in almost everyway. There is no reason to use it.

H.261
An earlier version of H.263, this version has inferior video quality (it's even more blocky).

Cinepak
This was the dominant codec for many years, which lead to it being installed on almost every computer and giving it excellent compatibility, but from a technological viewpoint it is obsolete. MPEG-1 has replaced Cinepak as the new standard for universal playback. See the Cinepak entry in the AVI section for more information. Return to Index

 

[GlennChan]

1- I'm seeing better results from H.264 than the other alternatives for Quicktime (this is for web delivery).

In my tests, the H.264 codec definitely seems to use nearest neighbour resampling for chroma. Which is likely the worst way of implementing chroma subsampling. You can see these artifacts on the MPAA ratings title on every trailer... the text looks like they have drop shadows (they don't). This is easier to see on a LCD than a CRT.
On the other hand, H.264 gives really good quality as a web streaming codec. As a whole it's a good codec.

2- Prores, 8/10-bit 4:2:2 uncompressed, and the DVCPRO HD DVCPRO50 codecs are unavailable on the windows platform. This is really annoying if you make a master with those codecs and need to open it on windows .

 

[Alexis Hanawalt]

H.264 blows them all out of the water now, right? - just takes more time to encode. If anyone can find web-compressed video that looks better than the H.264 movie trailers on Apple's site, please speak...

 

[till]

Im new to the whole quicktime thing,
and to be honest i will never finish in 1080p/ 2k myself. But I am curious.


Which quicktime codec (redcine output) and settings in project and output section is best for online editing in 1080p?
(Mac/ PC)

Second question:
If i want to have an uncompressed quicktime 2k RGB for online editing, which
codec do i have to choose...PNG?

I have windows based redcine and i dont see an uncompressed RGB setting under the options, just a lot of the described codecs above.

Is there an uncompressed selection possible on the macside of redcine?
( I dont have the possibility to work on a mac)


thank you

 

[GlennChan]

Cinewalt:
H.264 is an open standard, with differences in implementation. There are also different profiles; the advanced profiles are more difficult to decode and potentially offer higher quality.

This comparison shows other H.264 codecs pulling ahead of Apple's H.264 implementation:
http://www.doom9.org/codecs-quali-105-3.htm#conclusion

*I haven't compared H.264 codecs myself.

 

[Steen Dongo]

QuickTime codecs

QuickTime codecs

I can highly recommend looking at this site for in depth testing of different QT codecs:

http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/

It's a very comprehensive guide to a lot (if not the most recent) of QT codecs used in both cameras and NLE's alike

got it from here
http://people.csail.mit.edu/tbuehler/video/codecs/quicktime.html,

feel free to add, to talk about quicktime settings in relation to redcine/FCS2 (offline, uncompressed etc.), updates. whatever you like.

 

[Adrian T.]

You can see these artifacts on the MPAA ratings title on every trailer... the text looks like they have drop shadows (they don't).

Of course they do. They all have a black drop shadow. And it doesn't depend on the Codec in use.

 

[Sean]

I've been wondering, and since you've brought up QuickTime files: do you think a program like Avid adequately converts a QuickTime file like a Cineform HD QuickTime (presumably RGB 0-255) into the Avid color space (16-235) on import? My files look a bit washed out when imported into Avid versus viewed directly in the QuickTime viewer before importing them. Or maybe it's simply the viewer itself that makes one look "richer" than the other, when in fact perhaps there's no difference in the file's color space. Hm.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You should add:
"Never leaves your gamma alone and usually screws up your image." To the list of cons in the OP.

H.264 blows them all out of the water now, right? - just takes more time to encode. If anyone can find web-compressed video that looks better than the H.264 movie trailers on Apple's site, please speak...

Somewhat. Obviously not Tiff and TGAs. One thing you have to remember with H264 is it takes a LOT of processing power on a PC. You need a very very zippy computer to play back 1080p.

 

[GlennChan]

They all have a black drop shadow.

My mistake. In that case the artifacts are there... though they somewhat look like they are part of the drop shadow.

 

[Lexicon]

H.264 blows them all out of the water now, right? - just takes more time to encode. If anyone can find web-compressed video that looks better than the H.264 movie trailers on Apple's site, please speak...

This is already being debated endlessly on Doom9 but having done my own tests, I've yet to see any conclusive proof that H.264 is any better than it's main competitor VC-1 or if you want to get specific for web applications, WMV9. If anything, I've found them to be nearly identical in terms of visual quality (and probably indistinguishable in difference to the average user) using some of those Apple trailers and their Xbox Live counterparts which are encoded in WMV, but there are so many other factors, primarily the actual encoder used and the quality of the source material, that determine the PQ of the final video file. Playback of h.264 files is certainly a big task for many non-multi-core PC's while HD quality WMV9 is easily decoded if you have a recent GPU and drivers from Nvidia or ATI.

 

[GlennChan]

To go on a digression here... I think the WMV format will slowly fade away.
It doesn't really offer much for the consumer.
A- Quality-wise, it's not significantly better than H.264. (As far as I know.)
B- H.264 has much more support as a standard and is more widely deployed. It should get easier to encode for (it isn't quite right now AFAIK), has a biggest ecosystem around it, and future embedded devices will likely have hardware to decode (and encode) H.264.
C- As a web streaming codec, WMV will likely kick around for some time (like how Real Player is still vaguely around) especially due to WMP being installed on every Windows machine. However, the future will likely head towards something that is convenient and will work on most people's computers... e.g. what Youtube is doing right now.

I just don't think it has anything that compelling to offer to consumers over H.264. Just my opinion.

 

[M Most]

To go on a digression here... I think the WMV format will slowly fade away.
It doesn't really offer much for the consumer....
I just don't think it has anything that compelling to offer to consumers over H.264. Just my opinion.

Well, if that consumer happens to be a Windows user instead of a Mac user - and last time I looked that still meant about 85-90% of all computer users - it has one very major thing to offer, namely direct support in Windows. It also happens that its "professional" variant - commonly called VC1 - is a very popular and fully supported codec for both Blu Ray and HD DVD.

The only part of the world that's Mac-centric - and therefore H.264 centric - is the small fraction represented here and in other segments of the media industry. The rest of the world - even though it might like iPods and iPhones - remains a Windows world. One should keep that in mind when using a term like "consumers."

 

[Craig Schober]

The only part of the world that's Mac-centric - and therefore H.264 centric - is the small fraction represented here and in other segments of the media industry. The rest of the world - even though it might like iPods and iPhones - remains a Windows world. One should keep that in mind when using a term like "consumers."

if we're really talking about consumers then windows or mac really don't carry any weight because flash is platform agnostic and is the only video that 99% of consumers will see on their pc by way of youtube. of course that is all being converted to h.264 but consumers still don't care. vc-1 and h.264 are both supported on blu-ray and hd-dvd. there won't be a clear "winner" there until stronger authoring support is given by mac and microsoft. namely, microsoft will wait to see what mac does and then take it from there.

 

[till]

Im new to the whole quicktime thing,
and to be honest i will never finish in 1080p/ 2k myself. But I am curious.


Which quicktime codec (redcine output) and settings in project and output section is best for online editing in 1080p?
(Mac/ PC)

Second question:
If i want to have an uncompressed quicktime 2k RGB for online editing, which
codec do i have to choose...PNG?

I have windows based redcine and i dont see an uncompressed RGB setting under the options, just a lot of the described codecs above.

Is there an uncompressed selection possible on the macside of redcine?
( I dont have the possibility to work on a mac)


thank you

pleaaaaaaaaaaaaase answer !!!!!!

 

[MichaelP]

You can always export uncompressed sequential TIFF or DPX if you don't see the QuckTime codec to fit your needs.

Michael

 

[theatereleven]

Hey till - I'd love to know the answers to the those questions as well. If you run across anything can you post here??? THANKS!