Mjpeg vs avchd codec tests- the good, the bad and ugly

PappasArts

PappasArts

Veteran
For Updates: MIKOS ARTS on Twitter
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com/blog-page-2
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.COM
http://MIKOSarts.net
http://MIKOS.info


Been doing some codec comparison tests with MJPEG 70+ Mbits 1080p and AVCHD 1080P.
Both codecs are amazing and have their rightful place for certain shots and projects.
However- MJPEG is a better codec, and if it can get tuned near perfect,
that would be awesome for certain projects.

The posterization tests below ( AKA Banding )- The GH1 smooths out the AVCHD recording somewhere in the
chain, and that make's it a breading ground for that artifact.

STANDARD
-2 contrast
-2 detail
color 0
NR- -2

codectestv2.jpg



In my Posterization tests, I have concluded that Nostalgic for some
reason produces less of this artifact. Trust me I prefer to use standard
setting, however nostalgic appears to be doing something to the signal.

- 2 on all settings for the posterization test.
3200K
35mm Nikkor at f2.8

POSTERIZATION.jpg



Here's 24PN vs 24P over 60i
Shot in "C" settings
24PNVS60i.jpg



MIKOS ARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com/blog-page-2
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.com
http://MIKOSart.net
http://MIKOS.info


[size=+0]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info Thread:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
The MJPEG looks almost like a wavelet codec compared to the AVCHD. It’s much cleaner. Also, my problem with the GH-1 was always what seems like in-cam over sharpening or rough edges. The MJPEG does not display this…at least to my eyes. I said it a year ago….but the MJPEG looks better than the AVCHD but folks kept saying that it is noisier and less efficient. Some of us thought that higher bit rates on MJPEG would solve that…and it seems that thought was correct. Thanks for those shots.

Is the MJPEG still 30p only or is there a “true” 24p patch yet?
 
what software are you using to decode the videos for the screenshots? (some of them, like premiere/ae, have a bug decoding native avchd and h.264 chroma interpretation)
 
PDR said:
what software are you using to decode the videos for the screenshots? (some of them, like premiere/ae, have a bug decoding native avchd and h.264 chroma interpretation)
Click to expand...

Cineform NeoScene for conversion- which is one of the best. Then taken in to After Effects so there is no AVCHD anymore.

MIKOS ARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com/blog-page-2
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.com
http://MIKOSarts.net
http://MIKOS.info


[size=+0]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info Thread:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
The MJPEG looks almost like a wavelet codec compared to the AVCHD. It’s much cleaner. Also, my problem with the GH-1 was always what seems like in-cam over sharpening or rough edges. The MJPEG does not display this…at least to my eyes. I said it a year ago….but the MJPEG looks better than the AVCHD but folks kept saying that it is noisier and less efficient. Some of us thought that higher bit rates on MJPEG would solve that…and it seems that thought was correct. Thanks for those shots.

Is the MJPEG still 30p only or is there a “true” 24p patch yet?
Click to expand...

Hey Ian-T,

I've liked MJPEG way back too; however once the codec got super charged, it's performance is exceptional. It does look like a wavelet codec compared to AVCHD. The 720 Hi-bit rate has even more bits thrown at it since it's a smaller frame.

There is more room to tweak the MJPEG codec since we still have never had it explained to us; the relationship between the 4 Quality settings and what the individual numbers do; the Table settings- and their relations with all one another.

Knowing that- would help tremendously in fine tuning it.

Someone mentioned that MJPEG was noisier in their city low light tests. Well that is the fact that MJPEG unlike AVCHD is not having some form of NR going on in the signal path IMO. The MJPEG seems to be straight forward- and doesn't apply such processes IMO- which is good. So if your going to shoot above 800iso in MJPEG, don't be surprised that there's going to be more noise ( anymore then shooting +18db on a camcorder ). The 800iso is over a 1100 ( from the dxomark.com ) lab tests.

I wish more people would try to figure out the formulas, instead of waiting on the sidelines for it to come to them from the few others trying to perfect it. The more people that work on this, the more ground we can cover and improve it even more possibly.

MIKOS ARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com/blog-page-2
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.COM
http://MIKOS.info


[size=+0]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info Thread:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
PappasArts said:
I wish more people would try to figure out the formulas, instead of waiting on the sidelines for it to come to them from the few others trying to perfect it. The more people that work on this, the more ground we can cover and improve it even more possibly.

Pappas
Click to expand...
Well, I should be part of that group of testers starting tomorrow when I finally receive my GH-1. :happy:

But once Mjpeg becomes fully stable on this cam then I won't shoot without it. The image looks much smoother and less harsh on the edges. I always thought that this codec would shine if a higher data rate was thrown at it (isn't that what the Pentax cameras are doing?). Much easier to edit also.
 
Ian-T said:
Well, I should be part of that group of testers starting tomorrow when I finally receive my GH-1. :happy:

But once Mjpeg becomes fully stable on this cam then I won't shoot without it. The image looks much smoother and less harsh on the edges. I always thought that this codec would shine if a higher data rate was thrown at it (isn't that what the Pentax cameras are doing?). Much easier to edit also.
Click to expand...


Some of those artifacts are caused by it not being 24PN and rather 24 over 60i. Barry can confirm this. However as I understand it; 24PN gets more bits thrown at it since there's 36 less frames to compress, and the 60i process takes it's own whack at it as well.

I'm shooting some 24PN c settings right now- for comparison.

MIKOS ARTS
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com/page-2-of-blog
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com/blog-page-2
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.COM
http://MIKOS.info


[size=+0]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info Thread:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
Well, I should be part of that group of testers starting tomorrow when I finally receive my GH-1. :happy:

But once Mjpeg becomes fully stable on this cam then I won't shoot without it. The image looks much smoother and less harsh on the edges. I always thought that this codec would shine if a higher data rate was thrown at it (isn't that what the Pentax cameras are doing?). Much easier to edit also.
Click to expand...

The problem with shooting with MJPEG that has much more than a 38Mbs data rate is that you can't review it in-camera. I hope to do some good objective testing this weekend, but it also seems to me that 1080p24 AVCHD holds more detail than the larger MJPEG options.

So in the end, the key is going to be to understand the limitations of the two options and to employ each accordingly. I can easily see myself carrying around a small collection of small capacity SD cards - each carrying its own unique patch combination.
 
Last edited:
John Caballero said:
I would be happy with a stable mjpeg 720p24 at some healthy mbits.
Click to expand...


That would be awesome to have 24P as well for Mjpeg! I wish we could have a better understanding on what the tables and Quality settings do, and how they work together..

For Updates: MIKOS • MLPappas on Twitter
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
http://MIKOSarts.wordpress.com
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com/blog-page-2
http://mikosarts2.wordpress.com
http://MIKOSarts.COM
 
Last edited:
Hi Pappas. I posted it before to spark a discussion but nothing happened. Here it is again. You can notice AVCHD has more processing than MJPEG. So far your tests indicates more NR in AVCHD.
Your MJPEG vs AVCHD snaps showed a softer MJPEG image.
Why are we not considering that the MJPEG is closer to the unprocessed raw sensor signal and the sharpness in AVCHD is simply extra processing ?
I didnt see anything in your tests that could not be explained by a sharpen filter applied to MJPEG.

So, I am suggesting that AVCHD = Sensor + NR + Sharpen
while
MJPEG = Sensor signal.

Another reason for this is that upscaling does take a fair bit of time. And there is no reason for the sensor to upscale in 1080p MJPEG mode. Since its firmware, its a software RTOS implementation.
If there would be an upscale it would be for both AVCHD and MJPEG. Just an upscale for MJPEG makes absolutely no sense.
The other alternative where MJPEG is less processed does make more sense as Panny never intended MJPEG to be used at 1080p.
 
After testing the hacks for about 2 weeks now, to me the mjpeg with 422 overall is much more "smother" to the eye and easier to grade..now not saying that the avchd has not improved, it has, but comparing the 2 mjpeg to me is more pleasing to the eye(much easier on my i7 with sony vegas to edit than the avchd)..but the issue still is that we dont have 24p for mjpeg, and i just love the film feel the 24p avchd gives, even after converting 30p to 24p (it just does not look as good as the real 24p avchd)..so for me, im shooting a music video next week, and im playing all this in my head, and still not sure what to use, its killing me..like everyone else if we had 24p mjpeg the i wont touch the avchd ..
 
sammysammy said:
After testing the hacks for about 2 weeks now, to me the mjpeg with 422 overall is much more "smother" to the eye and easier to grade..now not saying that the avchd has not improved, it has, but comparing the 2 mjpeg to me is more pleasing to the eye(much easier on my i7 with sony vegas to edit than the avchd)..but the issue still is that we dont have 24p for mjpeg, and i just love the film feel the 24p avchd gives, even after converting 30p to 24p (it just does not look as good as the real 24p avchd)..so for me, im shooting a music video next week, and im playing all this in my head, and still not sure what to use, its killing me..like everyone else if we had 24p mjpeg the i wont touch the avchd ..
Click to expand...

Why not shoot them both? Take 1 - AVCHD - Take 2 - MJPEG that is if you got the time and it doesn't cost extra.
 
sammysammy said:
After testing the hacks for about 2 weeks now, to me the mjpeg with 422 overall is much more "smother" to the eye and easier to grade..now not saying that the avchd has not improved, it has, but comparing the 2 mjpeg to me is more pleasing to the eye(much easier on my i7 with sony vegas to edit than the avchd)..but the issue still is that we dont have 24p for mjpeg, and i just love the film feel the 24p avchd gives, even after converting 30p to 24p (it just does not look as good as the real 24p avchd)..so for me, im shooting a music video next week, and im playing all this in my head, and still not sure what to use, its killing me..like everyone else if we had 24p mjpeg the i wont touch the avchd ..
Click to expand...

I'd go with MJPEG if you love the color you get with the new color space. To the uninformed the 24p won't be as big a difference I think than the better colors. But it also depends on the video. Is it going to be color intensive? Are you going to be doing any keying? Or is it more a short film that happens to make a music video? If that was the case I can see the 24p winning out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top