Miraizon ProRes Codec

No Prores 422
The reason? Just cuz.

Actually I read the PDF that came with it, I got the feeling the HQ file was larger but didn't make much more difference with the quality.
May do some tests with that as well.

KK5hy,

I believe what I will be doing is slowly replacing shots with ProRes. At lest the worst ones, and the ones getting the most sales. Pond5 allows you to upload replacements. If a clip has had sales, they let you link the new upload to the old one so that your sales history can continue to help your ranking, then you delete the old.

Well I bit the bullet and am now downloading the codec from Miraizon. I asked about the gamma shift issue, and besides learning (again) that I need to learn more (always) it was indicated to me that ProRes encodes in (o bother, I'll just paste it)

ProRes compresses using YCbCr components, however, so if you send in source video in RGB or attempt to decode the output into RGB, there is the potential for color shifts because of the conversions between RGB and YCbCr.

To alleviate this problem, our codecs include support for specifying the correct color system to use for converting the video components. You can select the correct color standard through the configuration dialog, or your editing software can send it to the codec programmatically. Our codec will set metadata in the compressed files to include whatever color setting you specify. This way, when the file is decoded the decoder will also know what color settings to use for YCbCr to RGB conversions.

Preliminary tests indicate codec does not play nice with Vegas Pro. One crash and one really funky render in totally digitized error colors. Must fix.

Works just fine with no worries in AE CC.

Made a blue layer, with a white layer under it. Erased some of the blue layer with a huge brush, mostly feathered.

ProRes 422 looks real good - "might" be able to see a slight shift in some pixels in the feathering, but I have to totally geek out to see it, and it may be imagination.

Comparitavely PJPEG at 90% looks like crap. And that's not even taking into account the known color shift bug.

File size for 11 second color static render at 3840x2160:

pjpeg = 62.8MB
ProRes 422 = 82.3MB

No tweaking or settings have yet been looked into, but I'm convinced I like it, and it's well worth it.

I went to premiere cc and deleted that bug infested Vegas.

What is the main reason ya'll have for using AE versus PP? I like the ease and fast working with PP better. I'm more familiar with PP so I just stay with it. If there are true advantages in AE I might need to shift my thinking.

Both have their purposes.

PP is an editor. AE is a compositor and effects generator. I'm much more comfortable and quicker in AE doing color correction, masking, stabilization, etc.

If I were working on a long project with multiple tracks of audio, I'd use PPro. While doing stock, since I work on short 10-20 second clips, I choose to work in AE.

I use AE for augmentation and surgery. As en editor it's a dog - of course it's not meant as one. Being familiar with Vegas and not wanting to pay more to Adobe per month, I'll stick with Vegas up to the point where it does not do what I want it to do. Not finding Vegas 13 anywhere near as buggy as its predecessors. The way I work, I have all my clips arranged by dated folder, and each folder has a Vegas session. The clips in the timeline are cut up into regions, the regions named, the same as the resulting renders. I can keep track of what is rendered, how it was rendered, and what is yet to be done (for those rainy days) This goes as far back as I can remember. For instance, I know exactly where my eagle is, and I can go back and rerender it exactly the same, except in better codec.

Which, by the way, Miraizon ProRes does work in Vegas. However, the instance it does not work is when in 32 bit floating, at UHD resolution. I'm sure there is some reason, but happily, it works in 8 bit UHD, also 32bit float HD.

Looks really good. I'm happy. I'm also happy to have a bagful of fresh chanterelles from a foray into the woods. Yum yum.

I am seeing a shift in the scopes when I switch back and forth between original and rendered. I don't know what that means. Interesting that the same section (in this case a random cloudy sky shot) shows more detail in the scopes, but it moves, using ProRes 422. However when rendered to PJPEG (remember this is Vegas and it's not buggy like AE and PP CC) it LOOKS good, as in I can't actually see the difference, but in the scopes it shows a significant loss of detail.

So again, yeah, it's worth it.

BUT...and this is where it gets weird ... cropping into all three HD clips to an extreme 371x208.7, the ProRes 422 version actually looks softer than the original, and get this, the PJPEG version is more detailed! Weird indeed. It is actually noticeably softer - being that I'm cropped in so far, I am looking at cloud grades of grey and noise. I see less noise in the ProRes version. Is it that the missing details are contributing to the lack of banding? If I render to ProRes 422 HQ, will I retain my detail and noise? Let me see....

OK, yes ... rendering to ProRes 422HQ preserves more detail than Prores 422. Just so you know.

It's the same amount of detail preserved as PJPEG.

Both 422 and 422 HQ renders result in slightly darker (according to the scopes)

PJPEG is wider (does that make sense?) the term may be wrong, but it has a nit more high and a nit more low.

Next up (gawd but I bore me) is gradient render comparisons. Probably later. I'm too bored for this now.