Miraizon ProRes Codec

I have been reading a number of threads that talk about new CODECS and how ProRes is now a popular CODEC to upload for greater sales. I have personally noticed a large drop in sales ever since I switched from Motion JPEG to uploading High quality H264. Even though on my monitor the H264 looks better, and if trans-coded with the Pond5 Recommended settings is quite robust, it just seems that H264 has such a bad rap out there that Sales have dropped big time.

I am currently in the process of going through all of my HD footage and re-sampling them, using today's latest software, and at the same time setting up the clips for batch renders so that at any time a new CODEC flavor of the month comes along, I can batch render the clips out again with ease.

My Grass Valley edit system can export in almost every file format out there except for Pro Res. It is now possible to purchase a CODEC from Miraizon that will allow me to Batch Export to ProRes, but I am wondering if Pond5 is accepting these as true ProRes.

My second question is, what are the rest of you doing about the duplicate files? Are you linking with your original files, offering ProRes as an option, or simply replacing all of your files with ProRes or one of the other new CODECS? As I am starting completely from scratch, the files are of course not going to be absolutely identical, so that may be a problem. I hate to loose the good ratings that some of my clips have achieved, but linking with old files seems to be kind of a pain too. What is everyone else out there doing?

Thanks

Frank

Will you really re-uploat your 4000+ files in a new codec?

Pond5 recommend me to use h264 always...

I've started to use the ProRes codec from Miraizon from this point on but I'm not going to re-render any older clips.

What happening with H-265?

I export prores through windows,oh and there is no "true" or 'fake" prores just so you know, so dont worry as to whether your "workaround" prores has the credentials.You could also use avid dnxhd, i used to encode in that format, it is just as good as prores without the annoying export gamma issues,and the only reason i do prores is because i got a message from a buyer long ago that his nle couldn't see the file so i figured why not go with something even a non-technical guy can understand?

h.264 is lossy as hell! Who said to use it as a codec for stock? Yikes. "Acceptable" maybe. "good" no. It's a delivery codec, as in this is what you finish your project in. Then upload to Youtube/Vimeo, etc. ProRes and Photo-JPEG are intermediate codecs - they are designed to be used with "minimal" loss over generations. This is why the file size is so much bigger. h.264 looks fine at higher bitrate, but will degrade quickly...it's an efficient end use compression, but why would you want to double-compress your precious footage I hate the ProRes gamma issues....another guessing game...so I don't use it, especially after seeing carefully preserved highlights suddenly in illegal range and "splattered". A few tests of DNxHD vs PJPEG were inconclusive for my use, with the filesize and render time difference swaying me to stick with PJPEG. Frank, good luck with your project. I think we'd all be very interested to see if your sales suddenly jump.

Thanks for your thoughts guys.

Mizamook, I have found that H264, when trans-coded with QT using Best Quality, Multi Pass and All Frames, is surprisingly Robust. The file sizes are actually quite a bit higher than AVI. I have tested them through multiple hits and they stand up very well. I think the problem is that because it has been used as a delivery format with High compression it has gotten a bad rap and a lot of editors or stock buyers seem to be avoiding anything H264, just out of principle. At least that is the way that it seems to me. I was one of the first to promote the H264 option to Pond5 and have been uploading that ever since it was permitted. I must have at least 1500 clips up in H264. But even though they are better clips than my older stuff, the bulk of my sales still comes from the MJPEG. I understand that there could be other reasons, such as early sale counts are putting these at a higher ranking in some searches, and that the newer stuff just gets lost in the millions of other media, but I still wonder about the H264, and how much it may be killing my sales. It doesn't help when you see some buyers coming on and saying that they will "only buy Pro Res Clips", or "Never buy H264"...

Yes, I actually am re-sampling all my footage. Whether I upload and tag them all again at Pond 5 remains to be seen. For me, tagging is just about the worst way to spend a day! I am doing it primarily for myself. It is a project to organize all my footage of the last 7 years and get them into a readily usable format, already optimized for use in my own editing projects, or for bulk sales to my client base.

When I first started using HD, I didn't have the best camera settings, but didn't know any better. I am amazed at how much better I can make those early shots look, with a little attention in Post. When I see these early shots up at Pond5 and compare them with how I can make them look now, with a little experience under my belt, the difference is motivating me to think about investing the time to replace at least some of them. I know that buyers can also correct the clips themselves, but they are working with a bad file in an out-dated CODEC, and it is a little embarrassing that my work is out there like that, especially when these are the best sellers!

Another motivating factor for going through all my old stuff is to get them ready for my own portfolio and sales site that I am starting up. This will allow me to offer discounts on bulk collections, credit systems, but most importantly, offer the buyer the option of any of the most popular CODECS. It won't be instant download, but for those clients working on a doc, rather than deadline news, it gives them some options. Check it out... worldviewvideos.com It is still a work in progress but I already have over 1500 clips up.

WVI so you are considering in re-converting old hdv footage (correct me if im wrong i took a look at your stuff and saw mostly hdv 1440x1080 footage) just so it can appeal more as a professional format?If so,well first of all that sounds like a HELL of a lot of work for something that may not have an impact at all for your sales.

At this point i wouldn't say that producers (let alone some of the more technically inclined people such as editors) have learned to give a damn about formats and technical mumbo jumbo but anyway.

So If it's for the added benefits in quality,there is virtually none unless you are thinking of editing AND grading and generally enhancing your master footage (and only that) all over again because you want it to look better then i wish you the courage of a desert camel.

Thats the only way it would make sense for me, but still...

I don't mean this to harshly, but there is an English saying, "you can't make a silk purse, out of a sow's ear", I don't understand why clips that have been shot with a particular codec, can have more function, or appeal, when converted to anything other than their native format. When scientists work with data, they are aware of the caveat, "rubbish in, rubbish out".