Miraizon Prores

Has anyone tried if miraizon prores codack is accepted. I works very well on my machine, but the codack is discontinued, so I'm not sure if pond5 will accepted. I love Avid's DNxHD codack, but it's not accepted on other stock video sites, sadly. When I render my footage in H.264, it renders with 40Mb/s, even if I set it to 300Mb/s (may be, becouse my original footage is XAVC 50mbps). I don't know in which codack to render.

I've been uploading 300MB/s h.264 It looks IDENTICAL to the original RAW files in my timeline (I import it afterwards and switch back and forth, magnified to 400-800% depending on file resolution. PIxel perfect. Make sure to click Maximum Render Quality and make sure you select CBR. Files are bigger, but better.

Do not use Miraizon ... they all will accept it. But it sucks. It softens details. Visible to my eye at 100% magnification, OBVIOUS at 200%.

If you want ProResHQ from a PC one way to do it is a transcoder called 4K Footage Studio. Their filters and such aren't so great, but it makes really nice PRHQ files. It makes bad h.264 unless you are just uploading to YouTube. Use Media Encoder for stock.

This all has nothing to do with your source files. Nothing.

I have several thousand 4K clips here at P5 that are all Miraizon 422 HQ ProRes and they are sharp and very acceptable here and at all other agencies. I have had no issue and feel the quality is as good as any other ProRes. I have never seen issues that Mizamook has. There has been other discussions about it for the last couple years. Miraizon was bought out Jan 2015 and I believe the buyout was to take their ProRes off the market since it was so close to Apple. I would not be too surprised to see Abobe start to offer ProRes soon.

I process on a good 4K monitor and it looks great. On a HD monitor 4K video does not look good for any type of processing.

The monitor doesn't matter. I've seen this "softening" on multiple monitors, including Apple Retina, my Dell 5K, my twin HP 1920x1080's, and my HD laptop.

But then I'm looking for it.

The Prores from the Footage Studio does not exhibit this effect.

Last time we argued about this I reinstalled it because maybe, just maybe, I am wrong (always a possibility) and guess what? I wasn't.

Bottom line is no one is going to look at your clips that close, and if they are they are barking up the wrong tree anyway, since you are starting with a consumer codec in the first place. If they want the clip because of its look/content, and based on my own sales, they won't balk at buying it just because of a codec only I happen to know is crappy.

Contact me at my P5 username@geemail.com, I'll send you three very cropped in files of some random shot ... showing the loss of detail in the Miraizon. Yes, in ProResHQ.

I think they withdrew because the product sucked. Of course the rep could not see any detail loss in my examples. Which to me means the Rep is either blind as a bat (bats aren't blind however ... just a term!) or that he was using "alternative facts" .... hehehe

Or you can download these and put them into different layers, aligned on top of each other, so you can solo each one, and LOOK.

> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow Photo JPEG crop.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMadmpEYjZ6RkJOcHM/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow 4444XHQ crop.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaUnFDUDVjQjFJNm8/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow 422HQ crop.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMacWM3MjNOamJUYms/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow 422 crop.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaY2MtT1drNVNTZ1E/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow Original File crop.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaVVE0OVNnZkloX3c/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow Photo JPEG.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaU1U1Z2lwZHl4Y00/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow 4444XHQ.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaNlZIdGE3QUdHYkk/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow 422HQ.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaajVoTFNLRjZvaWM/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow 422.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMaRVBnaXJVcVJHenM/edit?usp=drive_web>
>
> Miraizon V2 Tests HD Snow Original File.png
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Nvo99E1vMad2lTVWN3bUNMalE/edit?usp=drive_web>

I don't think we argued last time. I shoot 4K with the Canon 1DX MK II and 5D MK IV and have absolutely no problem. I appreciate all the work you went to on sending a bunch of cropped clips. No idea on how or what percentage they are cropped too. I did look at the original and processed on one of them and don't see a problem or it's so minimum it doesn't matter. Maybe I'm as blind as the Rep was. In any case any of the cropped clips look far far better with far better information than the same would have looked if shot in HD.

I also never processed any in .png, I always used .mov.

I personally believe it is better than P JPG that I used for the first 15,000 + clips.

No argument at all. I just believe it's a great program, we'll have to agree to disagree and still be friends.

It doesn't matter the camera, either (or computer used to render), and it doesn't matter the resolution (HD or 4K)

I can see distinct softening (in fact it looks like careless noise reduction)

In order to see it you may have to import the carious flavors and stack them. If you don't do this, you could miss it. I don't need to ... I'm used to seeing it.

The .pngs were the easiest least compression I could use to export stills.

I've compared Miraizon to PJPEG (that was the original argument - not with specific people, just everyone else, it seems, except a few I've sent the stuff too, some of whom see it, and others don't ... ??? )

PJPEG has no detail loss. Miraizon does. However, PJPEG will show banding in some cases (dusk skies, for instance), and Miraizon wins in that regard.

If you look at the original and then at the crop, you can kinda see the crop ... (center frame, I think)

Most people can't see it. It doesn't matter in most cases. To me, it does ... I no longer store my original footage (I frequently come back from a few hours shooting with over a TB of raw footage ... can't store it, don't want to) so my renders need to be archival. Detail loss is unacceptable. Even if you have to magnify the frame to silly zoom ratio to see exactly what is happening, it's not good.

I have plenty files I wish I had done better, mostly PJPEG multi-renders, but also including half a year's worth of Miraizon renders - but are selling as they are, or too much trouble/impossible to re-render. I wish I had known what I know now, back then.

Use it if you will!

You have been warned.

These three files are a heavy crop in from what I believe was an HD file. Sorry I can't remember. The Miraizon one is the one with 422 in the name. No other processing has been done. All .pngs taken from the same frame, made from the original, a PJPEG render, (probably around 90%) and in this case a Miraizon 422 render.

You can do what I just did, to confirm the links ... load each one to a new tab. Then click between the tabs. Another thing you will notice with the Miraizon (I forgot to mention) was a slight dip in the red channel. You will see this, and you will notice, in the noise of the eagle's wings, it goes away with the Miraizon. This is NOT intentional noise reduction .. it is detail loss. I prefer to see noise, THEN get rid of it. When going from compressed camera codecs to RAW capture, the first thing people (including me) tend to complain about is the "increased noise" ... it's not ... it's just that with compressed 8-bit codecs the noise (and detail) is gone in a haze of compression before you even see it.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Nvo99E1vMaSmhkbTMxaGM3dU9hZmFRbHBXdHYycmRrTEZV
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Nvo99E1vMabER6R05iRlRLRDFyaF9NUG5lRVp3U3MxWTVj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Nvo99E1vMaZWx3U3NleERJekpJVm9mcWx1dnY2SlV6MFpB

Frankly, I don't know why I get so up in arms about this. It's kind of silly, I know. Mind my own business and all that. Just trying to make sure to answer the question as best I can. And then prove I'm not crazy. (too late on that one, but at least I'm not crazy about this!)

The big thing is Apple is killing Quicktime and up until now all versions of ProRes on Windows required QT to render. Unless Adobe cuts a deal with Apple ProRes may become Apple Mac only soon.

http://www.diyphotography.net/apple-killing-quicktime-windows-will-impact-workflow/

NOTE to P4: Why doesn't the link function anymore. Another good feature killed ;(

Another new option:

https://windowsprores.com/

I'd pay for it if it works. I WON'T pay it unless I have a guarantee - I'll ask them what they think. It would save me a render step for every clip. Maybe after I send them the info about Miraizon they will block me from their site ... who would want me as a customer (although I make a great tester ... I either break it or find out how it falls short)