Why isn’t everybody uploading H.264 codec?

And here is the P5 request:
Quote:

"We prefer HD footage to be saved ProRes 422 or in the photo-jpeg format, which is a low-impact, high-quality quicktime container and can be exported from most editing and conversion programs."

I'm always one to get drawn in by curiosity and desire to produce better. So when this kept popping up I had to check.

Again.

Here's what I did: Rendered a rotationally shifting blue-white gradient in Vegas, once in PJPEG, another Miraison ProRes HQ, both at 90%

Result: The PJPEG has grid/banding. (Vegas can't render h.264)

Took the ProRes rendered gradient, tossed it into AE threw a quick screen capture of a folder I had open with PNG on top, keyed out the white, leaving text and little icons.

Rendered PJPEG at 90%, h.264 at 100%, (a previous test showed same banding as evident in PJPEG was in h.264 unless 100%), and finally, Miraizon ProRes HQ at 90%.

Results: Besides the fact that the AE PJPEG render issue changed the blue to a slighter more green-blue, it's easy to see banding and blocky artifacts around the text and icons with PJPEG.

H.264 looked a lot smoother, with more detail, but a noticable loss of color in the icon gradients.

ProRes looked the best.

These effects are observed most bestly at higher mag (200-800%) but they ARE THERE, so don't you start giving me guff about pixel peeping, because while it's not an issue if you don't do any multiple renders or color work, once you start doing that stuff, these artifacts add up quickly and compound effects most undesirable result.

The file is 7 seconds long, the file sizes are:

PJPEG 123MB, h.264 119, ProRes 198

PJPEG is losing this battle.

h.264 is worthwhile as long as you don't care about the lost color information, and have a really big problem with file sizes.

ProRes is not perfect, but would likely be closer at higher ... ah hell, I'll render another ...

ProRes render at 100% shows VERY LITTLE improvement over ProRes HQ render at 90%. File size is the same. If there was real movement in the clip I suspect that filesize would change.

I think (so far) of the three ProRes is it if you care about your product.

Quick render of mountains clouds trees and birds (say, like a pan shot with gradients, detail, motion) later for real-world comparison.

Thanks Mizamook. Great post.

My workflow is now open files in Final Cut Pro X and let it optimize to ProRes422. Trim, Adjust exposure, saturation and color grading as required. Export to ProRes422 mov.

Get great results and "reasonable" file size in an approved popular codec.

As far as PhotoJPEG -- I don't know why anyone would use that massively destructive codec. I guess they have just fallen into that workflow without really testing it. I see many (most?) DSLR shooters converting to PhotoJPEG for Pond5 (and I assume others). It is unfortunate that they do not realize how much artifacts and banding they are ADDING to their files.

The main stock agencies should also look into this since they are recommending that contributors export with this destructive codec.

I'm glad others concur; photo-jpeg is a non starter.

I'm curious though as to what work flows or NLEs would buyers of clips find H.264 a nuisance. I see ProRes422 in my future but would like to have the reasoning down for understanding's sake.

So all this talk is great. Problem is PC historically has few options for h.264 and ProRes. Why PJPEG; because up to a year or two ago it was the only real option and the agencies all knew that. So until a built-in ProRes and h.264 is available in Adobe which is used by more people JPEG will stay the standard.

A while back P5 said they were working on auto-conversion 4K to HD but were trying to ensure they used the best conversion and codex. Wonder where P5 is leaning and what they have decided is best for buyers using this agency?

So for those running a PC and Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 what are you doing and what settings have you found the best? For 4K is what this discussion is important for.

But isn't ProRes and H.264 built into Premiere on a PC? I have a Mac, but I thought those two codecs would be cross platform. Or not before CS6?

I do not see a capability in Premiere Pro CS6 to do 4K in ProRes or h.264. I can see h.264 in HD only. Not sure on Adobe CC.

ProRes422 is Mac only. But there is a plugin for Windows too:
http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/plin/

File size between ProRes variants:
http://www.cinefilmlab.com/cf_site_assets/ProRes_Storage_Chart.pdf

For 4K multiply the MB/s by 4x. So a ProRes422HQ file 15 secs. long will have approx. 1600 MB (depends also on content).

I'd like to thank everyone for their input on this. I have a much better idea of what's happening.There is, of course, no right answer.