h.264 versus PJPEG

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?

Where do you submit that doesn't accept H.264?

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.

Are you rendering MP4 or .MOV using H.264?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.