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

Miraizon ProRes is all I've used for over a year and sell them all the time.
Yes, maybe there is no advantage to using Prores (other than what was written in that videohive article) when shooting with 4.2.0 8 bit cameras.
But I also shoot with my C300 which is still 8 bit but at 4.2.2
So I've always hated the idea that I would be using photojpg and throwing away my extra color to render to 4.2.0
Since Prores is my workflow I don't change it when editing my GH4 footage.

After reading that videohive post, I'm certainly glad I didn't.

I hope the pain was minimal Gene LOL

I do not know ..... why spend so much time color correcting and uploading prores if only 2 seconds are going to be used of the clip.
I am uploading photojpeg at 90%. I wish I could upload the original H.264 file directly from the camera, but I can't turn off the camera's internal mic. When I work from my very small home studio and shooting a single simple concept may take more than an hour because you have to re-shoot it so many times; spending more time color correcting trying to imagine what the customer wants; for me is not cost effective. If the camera shoots well, if it looks good in the monitor ... I do not fix the colors. Some people here over saturate everything and the shot seems from another planet.The few clips of mine that I have seen in TV seem to have been used just as I uploaded them with no additional color correction.

I don't spend a lot of time. I white balance, add contrast and a little saturation since my cameras all shoot flat.
I once experimented with a shoot where I uploaded that flat look right from the camera. They really don't sell well.

Jake,

I agreed with you. Curator rejected my effect footage, he said, customer can manipulate the footage if they want. He forgot customer are lazy as well, except those who are really creative and want to manipulate. This effect is exactly what I want customer to have, other than flat boring color.

You are right, if you shoot flat, you are forced to color correct.

Strange, patuwe, it must have been editorial? They accept (and I sell) very very effected footage. Just sold one night before last actually has FX in the title. I'm not selling what my camera interprets as reality, I'm selling moving image - and ANY image, if it can be named, tagged, defined, etc., is worthy of sale, and I put my own "artistic" interpretation on it .. whether it is my interpretation of how the scene looked in reality, trying to be subtle, (which is not how the camera spits it out as I shoot flat, which, as Jake mentioned, doesn't sell ...shooting flat is different that simply "not adding effects") or if I'm doing full enhancements to bring the scene to life or create abstracts ... I work it, and when I see the difference from what I've worked on vs. the output file, I get unhappy.

The argument that rendering to ProRes or PJPEG is a waste because the camera only spits out 4:2:0 is a major misunderstanding. If you transcode without recompression to strip audio and trim i/o points, and the image is not needing any color work, then yes, that's fine .. perfectly fine. In fact, for the general purpose of stock, it makes more sense.

BUT. If you do any white balance adjustments or color work, much less heavier editing like stabilizing and cloning, you need to render to another compression scheme of some type, and if you output to a lossy file, like h.264, you are compromising your work, blatantly, adding compression artifacts ON TOP of your already compressed look. Granted, some will never notice or care. Life is easier for them, and easier for you. Great. I have no argument with that, live and let live!

However, since I do like to "work" my files before upload, in fact if you saw some of them before I did anything, they'd be unrecognizable, grey, bland, mush ... I want them to be presented a certain way. Part of my workflow, for some sources, especially GoPro and DJI Inspire 1 footage, requires that I transcode to ProRes first, then import that into AE for color work. If the file is pretty straightforward I'm done after the initial transcode, as it is already in ProRes. But, having tried to do color work on both the original h.264 files and the ProRes transcodes, I can tell you with no hesitation that making changes to color/contrast on the original is MUCH more limiting than doing so after a transcode to a more robust codec even though __and this is the kicker__ there is NO more additional color or detail information ... this is a common misunderstanding that I wish would get cleared up once and for all.

However, I'm also working on becoming more accepting that the end user does not know A) What it looked like before I started work on it, B) What I thought I wanted to see as result, and finally, that they are interested in the file AS IT IS online, not what it could have been, and that the infinite variety of tastes, projects, and capabilities of editors and colorists everywhere to be able to treat the clips I supply them as much as they need to because it is already in an industry-accepted "intermediate codec" which gives them more latitude, whether effected or not.

asked P5 a while back if they accepted h.265 and was told no.