[Lossless] Ut Video Codec
- Kawatta-kun
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:19 pm
- Status: Awesomely great
- Location: Povoa de Santa Iria, Lisbon
- Contact:
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
Ok now I'm testing image quality. Tryng out in diferent video sources and now it works (on VDub). Let's hope it doesn't get bad again.
-
- Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:26 am
- Status: better than you
- Contact:
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
Also if it wasn't obvious, those 4 formats, you don't need to know what they mean besides for YUV420 is the only one you should actually be using unless you are an Advanced User (TM) which you are not.
- Kawatta-kun
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:19 pm
- Status: Awesomely great
- Location: Povoa de Santa Iria, Lisbon
- Contact:
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
I already know that the YUV420 is the better for compressing at VirtualDub.
But when rendering at our edition program? Some say RGB is the best, but why? And which of the two of it?
But when rendering at our edition program? Some say RGB is the best, but why? And which of the two of it?
- mirkosp
- The Absolute Mudman
- Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:24 am
- Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃
- Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
- Contact:
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
Go for YUV420, for the kind of footage and distro format we're working with it's the one that makes the most sense. Those that say that RGB is best either don't work with anime and don't distribute their work, or they just don't know that it's best to avoid colorspace conversions whenever possible, especially if you end up converting them wrong.
- Cannonaire
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:59 pm
- Status: OVERLOAD
- Location: Oregon
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
I keep YUV420 for storage, but when I make clips I convert to RGB because I know that my NLE will process them that way anyway and I like to control how it's converted. I only use the $100 Vegas though, so I can't specify floating point or higher accuracy colorspaces. It's situational whether you should do one or the other, but YUV420 (YV12) is almost always the best option for our purposes.
When it comes to the final encode for distribution, use YV12. Nothing else makes sense right now.
When it comes to the final encode for distribution, use YV12. Nothing else makes sense right now.
Think millionaire, but with cannons. || Resident Maaya Sakamoto fan.
-
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 5:33 pm
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
Yes it's fine to have both.Kawatta-kun wrote:At the AMVapp guide it says to have both, must have no problem. Oh well dunno :'xCannonaire wrote:Meh. I'm tired. I just now noticed that you also installed the 32-bit version and you were using the 64-bit version of Vegas. My bad. Maybe there's a problem with having both the x86 and x64 codecs installed?
Because virtualdub, avisynth, etc... is all 32bit you need the 32bit version. But because afx is 64bit (at least on the latest version) you need the 64bit version of the codec as well. It's perfectly safe to have both installed (there is a system32 and syswow64 for a reason).
And yea, use yv12 in basically all cases except when it has to be rgb(a) (in afx I guess).
- Jemm54
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:43 am
- Status: Cow
- Location: Argentina!!
- Contact:
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
It looks like a really good alternative, but not convince me the size (which for me was enough, but when working with many files in the end will not use: P) end of files compared with Lagarith, the truth is that the difference in decoding speed did not notice ....
Maybe in the future with more HD to try it out in more detail, but for now I think I'll keep using L
Spoiler :
-
- Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:26 am
- Status: better than you
- Contact:
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
Why are you even bothering with your comparison? It's obvious that you don't get how codecs or even subsampling work, or you wouldn't have bothered posting that in the first place. I'm fairly certain that every post I've seen from you so far does little to discourage one from thinking you're actually retarded. Do you even know what the 422 in the name means? Holy fuck.
-
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:15 am
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
hello, iam kinda desperate, dunno what iam doing wrong with utv
iam using cs5 64bit adobe media encoder, after effects, premiere pro
heres what happens, i darkened samples so its more visible how colors break down
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/_original.png ... original
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/cineform.png ... ok (works fine, but trial, just for compare)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/UTV-RGB.png ... ok, just minimal greenish color shift
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/UTV-420.png ... problem
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/UTV-422.png ... problem
- my editing process involves re-encoding it 3x times, so after that with what happens with 420/422, it damages visibly even without darkening it
- so also once it transfers chroma subsampling to that of codecs, why it gets worse and worse after every other recompress, its basically lossy
- dont understand this, source is YUV, 420, 8bit ... so i thought "YUV420 ULY0" should work best
- i tried all adobe media encoder options, turning off/on "render at maximum depth", "use maximum render quality", tried codec ignore client settings .. nothing helps
my only idea is that adobe works only with 24bit colorspace, or something like that, coz RGB ut video is fine, and also the reason why it gets worse every other re-encode .... but dunno, it shouldnt ... "render at maximum depth" tooltip says "8bit rendering when unchecked" ... and makes no difference when unchecked... pls what iam doing wrong
iam using cs5 64bit adobe media encoder, after effects, premiere pro
heres what happens, i darkened samples so its more visible how colors break down
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/_original.png ... original
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/cineform.png ... ok (works fine, but trial, just for compare)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/UTV-RGB.png ... ok, just minimal greenish color shift
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/UTV-420.png ... problem
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3358708/temp/UTV-422.png ... problem
- my editing process involves re-encoding it 3x times, so after that with what happens with 420/422, it damages visibly even without darkening it
- so also once it transfers chroma subsampling to that of codecs, why it gets worse and worse after every other recompress, its basically lossy
- dont understand this, source is YUV, 420, 8bit ... so i thought "YUV420 ULY0" should work best
- i tried all adobe media encoder options, turning off/on "render at maximum depth", "use maximum render quality", tried codec ignore client settings .. nothing helps
my only idea is that adobe works only with 24bit colorspace, or something like that, coz RGB ut video is fine, and also the reason why it gets worse every other re-encode .... but dunno, it shouldnt ... "render at maximum depth" tooltip says "8bit rendering when unchecked" ... and makes no difference when unchecked... pls what iam doing wrong
- post-it
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:21 am
- Status: Hunting Tanks
- Location: Chilliwack - Fishing
Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec
which has nothing to do with storage problem for your Codec.Johny-115 wrote: i am using cs5 64bit adobe media encoder, after effects, premiere pro ..
The editor is not utilizing 32bit-Alpha Level Images. Use Huffy to store what your working-on.
All of your images suggest that your using 16-bit color pallets instead of 32-bit color pallets.
[[ you might as well be editing in Xvid! ]]