The best codec for output and archive?

[Paulo Emílio]

Hi guys i am doing a test on output 1080p qt movies from after effects and i am trying to figure out best solution. Any codec suggestions ?

[Kyle Mallory]

JPEG2000 for archive, or OpenEXRs for highest-quality output.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

OpenEXRs for highest-quality output.

Better than TIFFs? :detective2:

And do you have experience with this 16 bpc codec - Microcosm - by Digital Anarchy [now bought by RedGiant].

[Daniel Browning]

Any codec suggestions ?

I recommend Cineform. Visually lossless at moderate filesizes and very well done, IMHO. Costs under a grand.

[Michael Tiemann]

I recommend Cineform. Visually lossless at moderate filesizes and very well done, IMHO. Costs under a grand.

Why would anybody even think of choosing a proprietary format for archiving? I can see using proprietary tools for workflow (get the job done right/fast/etc.), but I would expect that when archiving, the most important feature is readability. Will Cineform be prevalent 20 years from now?

[Kyle Mallory]

Better than TIFFs? :detective2:

And do you have experience with this 16 bpc codec - Microcosm - by Digital Anarchy [now bought by RedGiant].

Yes, better than TIFFs. EXR is a float-based format specifically created for high dynamic range (hdr) source material and VFX work by ILM. It is natively supported by NVidia's shader engine for hardware accelerated processing, and as a file format, is much simpler than TIFF. While TIFF is an open standard, in which each vender writes their interpretation of that standard, EXR is open-source (at least in the sense that ILM releases [regularly] their own code to further support it).

I am not familiar with Microcosm.

[Daniel Browning]

Why would anybody even think of choosing a proprietary format for archiving?

Because some people have different needs.

Some need to archive in a way that will never require further maintenance, like putting it in a time capsule as in the movie "Knowing". For those, it would be vital to use file formats and storage media that are likely to be accessible in the future without any intervention in the intervening 20 years. That might mean petabytes of storage instead of terabytes and making the footage hard to dig up and use.

Other people don't need or want to make it difficult to access, but to have it available at a moment's notice. Cineform files are small and light on CPU utilization, so they can be used with no transcoding or proxies as long as the software is compatible.

Will Cineform be prevalent 20 years from now?

If any archive format, including Cineform, becomes undesirable in the future, it can be transcoded to whatever new format is desired.

I'd prefer a non-proprietary format, too, but for some needs the compromise is well worth it.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Yes, better than TIFFs. EXR is a float-based format specifically created for high dynamic range (hdr) source material and VFX work by ILM. It is natively supported by NVidia's shader engine for hardware accelerated processing, and as a file format, is much simpler than TIFF. While TIFF is an open standard, in which each vender writes their interpretation of that standard, EXR is open-source (at least in the sense that ILM releases [regularly] their own code to further support it).

I am not familiar with Microcosm.

Thanks for the reply.

I am a bit confused whether the 16bit bpc or 32 bpc OpenEXR output is recommended [in Adobe Afx, it says 32 bpc is not recommended].

[Mark L. Pederson]

I like DPX.

But the advantage with OpenEXR is that you have smaller files and more channels (if you want them to use them). I think AE handles EXR with 4 channels (RGB) while Fusion5 can handle about 15, and Nuke can handle 64 channels -

you can do fun stuff like this -

http://www.fnordware.com/OpenEXR/

ships with CS4 -
http://fnordware.blogspot.com/2008/1...fects-cs4.html

[Kyle Mallory]

I should take back my previous statement about EXR being 'superior' to 16bpc TIFFs. In all fairness, each has it's selling points... I think I would still use EXR's over 16bpc integer TIFFs for 98% of my work, but there is still that 2%... Anyway, back to your question:

I think 16bpc vs 32bpc depends slightly on the intended outcome/purpose/use of the file. In both cases, EXR's are floating point. Traditionally, 'float'ing point numbers are 32-bit, but EXR utilises a "half" float (16bits). This 16bit-float is the same float format that is compatible with nVidia or another hardware graphics engines. Obviously, saving at 32bpc is more information than 16bpc, but you may lose some performance benefits, with little or no more retained image information. You also effectively double your file size.

The EXR documentation describes 16bpc images as having 30 stops of latitude, and 1024 levels per stop (which is about the same for 16bpc 'signed' integer images). Some precision is lost as a result of the floating point math, in the lower levels of the images, which has the nice side-effect of slightly better results in grain management (since grain is often seen as noise in the lowest levels of the image). This also helps in some of the compression schemes that EXR uses, since grain has a tendency to complicate/reduce compression levels. If you are intent on keeping the integrity of *everything* in your original image, including grain, etc. This might be a reason to keep to TIFFs (that 2% I mentioned), but generally speaking, most people would just as rather lose that noisy garbage anyway.

That said, 32bps is still king for data retention. If you are serious about keeping the highest quality of image, regardless of other factors, I see no reason not to use 32bpc [float] over 16bpc [half] EXRs.

Keep in mind also, that the RED and all other cameras out there, including (by general consensus, film) can't really represent any more than 16bpc of information anyway, sooo.... food for thought.