plainman007
Well-known member
My main edit system plays back Huffyuv files with instantaneos gusto and absolutely no stutter of any kind. If file size wasnt a matter would Huffyuv be a better option than Cineform or jpeg2000 ? Visual quality wise ?
How do i render to H.264 format ?
- Thread starter plainman007
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Not surprising. Huffyuv trades encoding compression rates for playback speed.
Yes. One is lossless, the others are not. That said, Jpeg2000 is intended as a delivery codec. Meaning it can be adjusted for bitrate, and played back over the internet, CD, DVD, or hard drive. Cineform and Huffyuv are NOT intended for delivery, and you need to render them to something that is (wmv, mpeg4, mpeg2, etc)
plainman007
Well-known member
Perrone, Finally where does Mjpeg A and B figure in the option of high quality codecs ?
Its a completely intra-frame codec right with no B,P frames. How is the visual quality of these 2 codecs in comparision the rest we have discussed above and is there any relationship with J2k as Motion Jpeg also seems to consist of individual fully rendered images for each frame.
Its a completely intra-frame codec right with no B,P frames. How is the visual quality of these 2 codecs in comparision the rest we have discussed above and is there any relationship with J2k as Motion Jpeg also seems to consist of individual fully rendered images for each frame.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Motion Jpeg is what Motion Jpeg 2000 was designed to replace. Essentially, what we see in the Vegas program is motionJpeg2000 though everyone calls it J2k. J2K is primarily associated with images, just as Jpeg is.
Mjpeg is intraframe, but it not as efficient mjpeg2k. If I remember correctly, one of the MJeg variants allows each individual frame of video to be extracted back to it's Jpeg source, whereas the other does not. I cannot remmeber which is which. I don't use those very much except if I have to absolutely, positively be sure that when I give someone a quicktime file with good quality, they will be able to play it. In terms of visual quality, I would rank them in this order from best to worst with the caveat that you cannot control the bitrate of Huffyuv.
1. Huffyuv
2. Jpeg2000
3. Cineform
4. MJpeg
I place Jpeg2000 above Cineform for the sole reason that the bitrate can be adjusted and controlled in Jpeg2000. However, at least in Sony Vegas, Cineform wins because it is implemented inside of the .AVI codec which is what Vegas wants.
plainman007
Well-known member
A small clarification. You said..."Essentially, what we see in the Vegas program is motionJpeg2000 though everyone calls it J2k" Which codec are we reffering to ? The Jpeg2000 in .mov wrapper ? Or the Mjpeg A & B.
Secondly...Are Mjpeg A & B lower versions of Jpeg2000, in that they also are intraframe with seperate images encoded for every frame.
Huffyuv is better than Jpeg2000 ? Thats cool. Even in colorspace and reproduction ? So does it have wavelet based compression too and scales without blocking artifacts turning soft rather than jagged ?
Secondly...Are Mjpeg A & B lower versions of Jpeg2000, in that they also are intraframe with seperate images encoded for every frame.
Huffyuv is better than Jpeg2000 ? Thats cool. Even in colorspace and reproduction ? So does it have wavelet based compression too and scales without blocking artifacts turning soft rather than jagged ?
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Yes, I am referring to the Jpeg2000 in the .mov wrapper.
No, they are not lower versions. They were developed well before wavelet compression was developed.
Huffyuv is lossless. Of the codecs you listed it is the only one that is lossless. That doesn't mean it's "better". It's just different and is intended for a different use than the others. No it is not better in colorspace. It does not use wavelet compression, it uses an older technology. The only wavelet compression stuff out there right now is Jpeg2000, Cineform, Dirac, and maybe one other than I am forgetting. I don't know what you mean by "scales without blocking".
plainman007
Well-known member
What i mean was that J2k is known to soften rather than jagg and block when zoomed in or scaled out of proportions.
But you anyway rated Huffyuv as No 1 in the list as per visual quality right. But you now say its not better. Will it at least equal J2k in visual quality ?
Thanks
But you anyway rated Huffyuv as No 1 in the list as per visual quality right. But you now say its not better. Will it at least equal J2k in visual quality ?
Thanks
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
This makes no sense to me. Where did you hear or see this?
I rated Huffyuv as superior in visual quality. That is because it is an EXACT copy of the original footage. The term "better" is purely subjective. How do you define better? If better is defined as looking as close as possible to the original then yes it's better. If better means it looks close to the original and creates files that can be viewed by most people, then no, it's not better. If better means it is flexible in bitrate then it's not better. If better means it creates small file sizes while retaining most of it's fidelity, then no it's not better.
I don't know how many ways I can say it. The BEST visual quality is ALWAYS going to be the original or an exact replica of the original. Huffyuv can do that and so can lagarith. The Jpeg2000 codec included with Vegas cannot do that. However, if you plan to give that video to someone else, or put it on a optical disc or something else, Huffyuv will not play. So in those respects it is useless.
You have to define your intended use in order to say something is "better".
plainman007
Well-known member
Hi,
None of my files are for distribution. I wouldnt be talking these formats indepth if we were in the ditribution realm. Im not in the distribution based industry at all. So i have no interests whatsoever in distribution formats. My main criterea, at least pertaining to this thread, are highest quality (closest to the original) no size constraint, and sharpest output with smooth gradients in color without banding etc. I dont need flexible bitrates as im looking at driving clips at the highest bitrates possible by my system/media server.
So again its worthwhile to keep in mind that theres absolutely no distribution involved.
None of my files are for distribution. I wouldnt be talking these formats indepth if we were in the ditribution realm. Im not in the distribution based industry at all. So i have no interests whatsoever in distribution formats. My main criterea, at least pertaining to this thread, are highest quality (closest to the original) no size constraint, and sharpest output with smooth gradients in color without banding etc. I dont need flexible bitrates as im looking at driving clips at the highest bitrates possible by my system/media server.
So again its worthwhile to keep in mind that theres absolutely no distribution involved.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Then use Huffyuv. Simple.
plainman007
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing your views Perrone. I think ill use Huffyuv for my system based playback.
For the other video server playback i think you told me that Mpeg4/H.264 is a better option. Do you recommend it over Mpeg2 ? Also i read somewhere that h.264 is also intraframe with independent frames rendered that do not rely on adjoining frames. Because it looks like ill only have to render to one of these 2 formats.
For the other video server playback i think you told me that Mpeg4/H.264 is a better option. Do you recommend it over Mpeg2 ? Also i read somewhere that h.264 is also intraframe with independent frames rendered that do not rely on adjoining frames. Because it looks like ill only have to render to one of these 2 formats.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Mpeg4 will produce better video than Mpeg2 at the same bitrate. And Mpeg4 uses interframe compression just like mpeg2. Neither is intraframe.
kurtmo
Eats with 2 Fists
If you want great looking small h.264, then Vegas doesn't cut it in my opinion. I always render out to cineform or other uncompressed and then use a real h.264 encoder like x.264 (using MeGUI). The profiles built into Vegas are h.264 main profile at best, which if you read the spec. means no 4x4 deblocking. With other tools you can get AVCHD (high profile) video.
You can make amazing looking h.264 files and crappy looking h.264 files.
Just my 2 cents.
You can make amazing looking h.264 files and crappy looking h.264 files.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree, but just to clarify, it's not 4x4 deblocking, but 8x8 partition on I-frames.
Another option is to use frameserve out of vegas using debugmode frameserver - this eliminates the need for a large intermediate file