Let us know what you think of the new version
START THE SURVEY NOW
GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS VERSION
The World's Stock Media Marketplace
Login to your Account
Don't have an account?
Forgot your Password?
Username or Email:
Create an Account
Already have an account?
Sign in here
min 6 characters
min 8 characters
is exactly same as password
By Clicking 'Sign Me Up' button I accept the
Terms of Service
Sign Me Up!
Download our Free Stock Clip of the Week
Stock Video Footage
Trending Video Collections
Yosemite National Park
Harbours, ships and industry
Slow Motion Water Drops
Stock Photos and Images
Stock Music and Soundtracks
After Effects Project Templates
h.264 versus PJPEG
27 Jun 2012 18:27
I know this has been discussed a number of times. So here's a chance for P5 and other artists to again see if minds have changed.
I uploaded the same clip in h.264 and PJPEG here. Both looked identical on the preview that P5 generates. Of course the h.264 file was significantly small file size.
For me the disadvantage is that not all footage agencies accept h.264 when I last checked. It is so much easier to keep one standard file format and codex for me.
So is h.264 ready to make the big league here at P5 and other agencies?
27 Jun 2012 18:28
Where do you submit that
I'm still stuck with PhotoJPG because I still submit to the one agency that I know of that isn't on the H.264 train.
Changed 27 Jun 2012 18:29 by ODesigns ""
27 Jun 2012 18:41
Are you rendering MP4 or .MOV using H.264?
27 Jun 2012 19:10
I have always wondered what makes H.264 so special other than it is compressed for smaller file size. It has a tremendous loss for the film world as it simply doesn't have all the data that could or would be there with pjpeg. My take is screw Apple and their codecs as they will most likely soon be over with once the professional world starts bitching about not having enough color space and data. If people were a little honest about the whole thing, h.264 if fine for best quality web... but when it comes to post for film - fuggetaboutit. I work with one agency that insists on only h.264.. and yet they claim to be a premium agency.. of course their pricing is definitely premium... but the h.264 connection makes absolutely no sense. Oh,, and try to do alpha with h.264... fuggetaboutit. So all that think h.264 is the sh** - you are in for some big surprises.. just my thoughts on this and after a few conversations with actual post prod peeps.
27 Jun 2012 19:45
Yesterdays test was rendering QT .mov in h.264 at 100% full 1920x1080 HD 29.97. I know I was looking at the preview that was then generated by P5 and they both looked good on the small view.
I know it saves a lot on storage and transfer costs but I agree with Andy, the more compression the more loss. The real question based on compression is most cameras such as the Canon 5D MKII / III and 7D use a very big compression factor. We then process it way up to PJEG to send and sell. The problem was Adobe in the older Premier Pro and After Affects wouldn't save back in the original format.
If the big production houses don't like h.264 then it just isn't good for stock. Of course TV news doesn't care, they use I-Reporter junk from cheap cell phones all the time.
27 Jun 2012 20:52
PJPEG is a better intermediate, because it contains more color information available to an NLE. If you export to an h264 the buyer will have less grading room.
28 Jun 2012 15:02
If you shoot in .h264 and then export to PJPEG, the resulting file cannot have more color information than the original file unless you did post processed it.
28 Jun 2012 15:52
I guess that is part of my question. The cameras shoot and save in a very compressed format. We them "open" the file up in PJPEG. It can't have more data than the original capture ... just having a big increase in file size. I know on the photo side, each time a file is re-saved in JPG format some data is lost. Up and down conversion from original camera format seems like data is lost due to compression.
28 Jun 2012 16:03
Anything that comes in from my Sony A1U and Canons gets processed through NeoScene first.. this takes the files from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 - they do this using a special algorithm that has worked very well in all respects.
28 Jun 2012 18:11
I have same process as vader. Cineform expands color data in the file and saves as an avi. Then convert resulting file to pjpeg, which remains 422. Conversion to h264, would result in color loss back to 420.
28 Jun 2012 18:31
I used to use Cineform with Canon 5D MKII and older Premier CS. According to Adobe TV it is not needed anymore. Premier Pro CS5 - CS6 converts to 422 and even 444. Here's the link. Let us know what ya think now. It appears that Cineform is no needed anymore? Take a look at 5:45 minute mark to see what he says.
PREMIER PRO CS5 & CS6 ENCODING
29 Jun 2012 18:14
Don, that may be true for people that have the Adobe suite.. but not everyone does. Cineform Neoscene is a fairly inexpensive solution for those that are using other products. Particularly on PCs where it converts Quicktime to native AVI. The reason for the conversion is for increasing HSL to 4:2:2 but even more so to make the files native to WIndows - performance is so much better in native formats to the OS. Quicktime -> Apple, AVI -> Windows... This goes back, way back to the battle of the OS's between Microsoft and Apple. Apple did a great marketing job... but honestly, Quicktime ain't that great. Standards, standards... where are they??? Lagarith for example is a tight wonderful codec that compresses AVI beautifully and even offers an alpha channel out.. Good luck doing that with an AVC, H.264 codec.. not possible. One could write a whole book on this topic of codec's - but I think the first page would read something along the lines of --- "A simple standard for video does not exist simply due to every manufacturer in the world wanting to set such. It is a battle that started in the weee early days of Microsoft and a company called Next, which later turned over their goods to Apple when Steve Jobs re-conquered the company he founded. It was the best of times and the worst of times." :)
29 Jun 2012 19:55
Yup it's like the old VHS versus Beta. I do think many still believe Cineform is beneficial in the newer Premier Pro CS5 and CS6. It seems that there is no advantage anymore, or at least Adobe says so. When I used CS3 and CS4 I also used Cineform extensively too. Since GoPro bought Cineform they have announced that they are not making it compatible with Premier Pro CS6. I guess they also realized that Adobe finally caught up with them on the 422 and 444 qualities. There is a work around to install Cineform in CS6, just not sure it's worth the time anymore. Apple has always tried to corner the market on proprietary hardware and software. They finally gave in some and went to Intel processors ;).
29 Jun 2012 23:37
I have current adobe, and still use cineform pre-process. I did a lot of tests, and it makes a difference. It brings a lot of color out of darker and lighter areas without color banding or artifacting those areas like it does if you push those regions in adobe. The processing is quick, and non-destructive. Works for me a lot better than just processing through adobe.