Codec Quest: Perfect cross-platform, cross agency render codec?

Sure would be easier to render to h.264 and call it good.

But that would turn off some buyers, and it would turn me off too, because I care, and sometimes I use my own footage, and I like to manipulate it a lot.

Don't want to shoot myself in the foot.

Would love to have something that:

! Does not change the colors or induce gamma shifts

! Does not noticeably soften the image

! Can be manipulated in post by discerning editors and colorists

! Does not induce funky lossy artifacts

! Can be licensed across multiple machines (and does not cost an arm and a leg)

! Is accepted by all known and respected stock agencies (eliminating the need to render multiple versions)

! Can be created by most "pro" software, and edited by same

! Can be played at 4K resolution on semi-decent computers without stuttering, especially in NLE.

Am I asking too much? Am I forgetting something to ask for?

Please: Buyers of clips as well as makers of clips chime in.

There's nothing that ticks all boxes and will never be.It all depends on the acquisition format, and regarding the delivery there are enough options already.
Quality of an image always depends on original video quality first of all and handling and exporting secondly so there is virtually no format that maintains the quality of the original unless we are talking about uncompressed.

The point is are we talking about stock or video and film production?Because the latter has many established workflows which are not meant at this point to be done offline via internet and cloud.
Stock on the other hand is a game of compromises so apparently the only issue is uploading and storing the media and unfortunately one has to sacrifice quality or time and money.

Anyhow,If cineform was widely accepted in mov container it would definitely tick most of these boxes.Sadly it doesnt so a wavelet compression format close to what you are proposing is prores (dnxhd was never widely accepted because it was and will always be connected to avid although its the same exact philosophy).

Dvcpro and avc-intra could also have been that codec but thats another story.

What actually would be the one codec to rule them all and in a sense is,is mpeg-2 intra frame in mov container although one would need to use an advanced encoder to find the best settings and i dont know about 4K since this is getting very complicated at this point.
Imagine something like a bluray format but with higher bitrate,intraframe compression,10bit and 4:2:2.Actually this is called xdcam 4:2:2 and as far as i know anyone can use this.

Related to (or another flavor of?)XDCAM is XAVC Intra ... seems happy to work with higher resolutions. Haven't tested it as you said there are too many choices yet.

Would stock agencies accept it?

This is basically for stock, but with a mind to making it so "stock" doesn't mean "lesser" so if a full pro production house needed something they would be happy to use it, or at least be able to work with it.

I noticed Pond5 recommending to buyers to look for R3D ... why is that? Unless you have a RED and associated workflow, is that patronage just of the RED line?

I dont mean lesser although the compromises are very real.We cant have storage and speed (in every part of our workflow) and low cost and keep everyone happy.Clients propably need a lot of time to download clips with high bitrate,so they make compromises too.
Im sticking with prores since for better or worse it is universally accepted and if everything changes in the future i will have a decent 10bit master to do a full batch transcoding.
Although i might consider offering simple prores not hq this is overkill for the equipment i have.

Concerning r3d yes i believe it's the hype and status first and foremost,and secondly the fact that it was the first serious compressed raw format to come out that had some universal appeal so certain clients would pay extra for this,given that a contritubor would shoot appropriate subjects and price them well approprietly.
I have noticed certain sellers offering commercially released clips shot with the latest dragon sensors and pricing them very high.Apparently bought for commercial and corporate uses.

In other news what has been bothering me with the latest log curves of the newer cameras is the amount of cc i should offer because i cant trust buyers to know how to correct logarithmic.
I mean i struggle myself...

Once its hypnotic tendrils get a hold of you, the search for the holy Codec usually sends its victims into a slow and steady spiral of madness.

In the end, Pond 5 down converts using H.264 anyway so the search becomes futile. I haven't researched the other agencies to see if they are also utilizing h.264. As much as people don't like it, it seems h.264 is the most widely used codec in the stock footage world. Most dslr type cameras canon or panasonic output h.264 anyway so changing the codec after the fact won't make the initial footage captured any better. I would love to be using pro res but as gcrook pointed out it is not logistically possible because of the incredibly slow internet upload speeds I have available to me. Also the cost of storage and backups hard drives. Storage is getting cheaper but not that cheap. With over 12,000 clips the storage needs would be exponentially increased by going to pro res. I don't know a ton about h.265 but it is sounding like a better option than h.264. I wonder when it will start to be more widely accepted in both the editing suites and the stock sites.

I'm so already there. Maaaadness!

Regarding log - stands to reason we'd have to offer ungraded and a graded version - I'm sure some clients want the benefits of it, others do not. But then I cc almost all my clips anyway.

I'd be happy with PJPEG if it didnt' change the colors (from AE)

I'd be even happier with ProRes if it didn't soften things (Miraizon from AE or Vegas)

I'd be happy with ProRes from 4K Footage Studio if I could play it on my machine smoothly

What I wonder about is why can't ProRes be generated nicely from AE or Vegas if Footage Studio can do it so well?

I tried an experiment with MXF, but the XAVC 4K resized and windowed it to 1920 .... not sure why. I know I've much to learn.

Jaker - so you sell plenty h.264? If it comes down to it I might just have to go that route.

I'd love to see an option to render h.265 somewhere ... been expecting that for over a year, but not seen anywhere....???

I sell entirely h.264. Every camera I own outputs that codec anyway so it really doesn't make much sense to then switch to a codec that will be 20x the files size but not improve the image quality in any way. I have no way of knowing whether or not my stuff would sell better or worse using a different codec but even selling h.264 I finally hit a milestone last month of being able to cover all of our months expenses from stock footage income.

Jake - upon re-reading your post I say I must differ with your argument about not changing the codec because it is lesser from many cameras. Unless you are uploading straight from camera, or simply stripping the audio ... in my case I do make adjustments to the video, perhaps I should not as much as I do, but I like to, it's my style, and it's what I'm selling ... my main product is not what the camera saw (especially when shooting sLOG), but what I want the client to see. There are arguments against this, sure, but basically I do it, and I'm not likely to stop. (If it was a big deal the buyer could contact me and get the original or ungraded footage)

So - I feel I have to present my work in the most robust codec possible, to allow for further changes, and to preserve the work that I did to it, whether it is just color, or spot removal, adding elements, or whatever. I remember when I first started this game posting about how crazy it was to take a small file and make it big ... I have slow internet too, but I can't figure out how to make it all work easier but retain the quality aspect of it.

I dunno ... just trying to get back to the nice "standard" workflow I had one day long ago ...