Web Analytics
Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions

Re: RAW evaluations and graded versions


On 2018-07-16 20:55, Daniel Rozsnyó wrote:

Official and approved products have just better encoding quality due to having the secret sauce from the fruit garden :)
I too would have mentioned ffmpeg as the tool to use to avoid a Mac-Windows round trip, had I not been busy when I first saw Geoff's post.
But respectfully, I completely disagree about "approved" or "licensed" products automatically having better encoding quality. Take, for instance, commercial h264 encoders vs open source x264. x264 beats everything else I've ever tested hands down for quality at similar bitrates and can be an order of magnitude faster.
Of the three Prores encoders in ffmpeg, one stands head and shoulders above the others and that is prores_ks, as shown in the example Zach posted.
All lossy encoders generate artifacts, that's a given. ffmpeg's prores_ks encoder just generates different artifacts to the Apple Prores encoder. In my experience, neither stand out as being worse than the others, just different.
Some time ago, I spent some time working on some improvements for the DCP encoder we developed in-house. We started with an open source JPEG2000 encoder which consistently made better pictures than a couple of (incredibly expensive) hardware DCP encoders and our work improved things further. So it's definitely not a case of you get what you pay for :-)
Simon Burley
RPS Film Imaging Ltd
Direct: 01342 395 003
Mobile: 07702 732 655

Join cml-raw-log-hdr@cml.news to automatically receive all group messages.