Best MJpeg codec?

[mpiper]

I primarily use Premiere and Encore for video editing, but also use Virtualdub because I like it's filters.

Since I tend to edit any captured video (for restoration or other effects), I usually capture in MJPEG format, so each frame is independent. My favorite is PICVideo's, but it has problems with the newer versions of Premiere.

What is the best MJPEG codec around?

My priorities, in order, are:

• Encoding speed
  detail accuracy
  color accuracy
  file size

the ones I know of are:

• PicVideo
  Morgan
  Matrox
  Mainconcept
  Lead
  Forward (has anyone ever figured out how to configure this one?)

If anyone knows of others, please feel free to add them. All I care about is getting the fastest, most accurate Codec possible.

Thanks everyone!!

Mike

[lordsmurf]

If you want to capture with the goal of restoring the video, I would suggest uncompressed captures if you can handle the file size.

[mpiper]

Since it is a matter of capturing my old VHS movies that I don't have on DVD, I need enough space for 2 - 2.5 hours, any intermediate renders by Premiere and the final video output.

At high quality MJPEG settings that puts me at about 26-40 GB for the source and final with the renders varying from 100 MB to 20+ GB. I am afraid to think what that would be size-wise at fully uncompressed formats.

That's why I am looking at MJPEG. at 100% to 98% quality, the artifacts are indistiguishable after filtering and MPEG conversion.

Mike

[BJ_M]

PicVideo is very good - they also have some very high end mjpeg codecs at a high price that are better than their standard ones

[cd090580]

Since it is a matter of capturing my old VHS movies that I don't have on DVD, I need enough space for 2 - 2.5 hours, any intermediate renders by Premiere and the final video output.
Mike

The best solution is to capture with Huffyuv and then to avoid intermediate files, use as much as possible the framerserver method.

Open the original video and apply filter to it, then framer serve it to Premiere or Encode and apply effects. Then from Encore or premiere save it as an Mpeg2 File. This way you avoid the intermediate file between vdub and Premiere.

[vhelp]

These days, capturing uncompressed is not really all that what its cracked
up to be. I mean. The source ( after you capture it, *uncompressed* ) will
ultimately go through a conversion process when fed through to a final
encoder.

.. (I'm not familiar w/ Uleads's and/or Premier's software MPEG encoding and
.. its inter workings with conversions etc, but I'm pretty sure it follows
.. the other comments I made above)
.
.. The conversion is basically the same thing.. that being, its distructive
.. in a way. Say you capture uncompress. Once you open the source, (lets
.. assume that you need to perform some editing to the source) this captured
.. avi has to go through an conversion process in order for the editor to
.. open and read the source avi file. Its this capture uncompressed
.. and conversion process that's a waist of time and harddrive space.
.. I used to believe that capturing uncomrpessed was the way to go. But
.. pretty much all AVI file type editors incorporate this step in order to
.. open and read the source file. That's the nature of this AVI routine.
.. So it's a waist of resouces in the end, and not the appropriate method
.. for capturing and encoding (IMO)

So, if you are planning on doing any edits and things, forget about capturing
uncompressed to AVI. Its a waist of time and harddrive space, and could also
add to the tainting of the final AVI source file (before it even hits your
encoder) to the whole assumed benefit of uncompressed AVI, and depending on
the AVI editor being used.

.. Even if you didn't need to do any special or favorite editing/filtering
.. in external apps (ie, vdub) and you fed your source directly into your
.. encoder, your encoder still has to convert the source to a color space
.. in order to work with it.

Some encoders have an advantage over others. Take TMPGenc for instance.
It can open a vast number of AVI format files (ie, DV; MJPEG; MPEG; Huffy; etc)
But, one thing I like so much about TMPG is that it can open your sourse
as is, and encode to (color space) to maximum quality obtainable (pending
user skills/knowlege/techniques etc level of this app)
.
What I mean is, for DV, it handles it very well. I used to think that it
did a louzy job, but I've sense changed my mind, (after learning how to deal
with DV and TMPG) and I pretty much refuse to use any other codec (there are
others factors at play, that added to this decision)

MJPEG is a pretty good codec. I've used it over the years. Specially when
I had the DC10+ card as my capture equipment. I still have it, but I don't
use it anymores because my DV device ( ADVC-100 ) replaced it.
.
How much of the source gets tainted (due to the codec conversion etc) will
depend on the encoder, but also the source file being the item for processing.
.
There are various brands of MJPEG's floating around. So this as to be
considered/factored in this process.

Just remember, that depending on your Encoding app (ie, your Premier for
instance) it could violate (taint) the source file before even being encoded.
And if you don't know this, or don't know to look for this, or don't have
the eye for good instincts, you'll never know. And, you'll go on believing
that these apps are great, until you see someone else's, and wonder why
your's looks bad all of the sudden.
.
Every so often, I take a stab at a new or different encoder app. One of my
last (many) attempts were with Procoder v1.5 app. I've tried it with Film
source and DV (Interlace) sources. It has many comparable features to TMPG,
and i've tried them all, and in many different scenarious and settings, but
nothing seems to beat TMPG when it comes to a final encode.
.
Now the reason why I bring up the "depends on the Encoder" is because
Premier (or others) may not even use the codecs YOU USED during the
capturing phase. It may use it's own MJPEG decoder and that could be
an issue with quality, unless you don't catch it or know how to, for that matter.
These apps usually come equiped with many decoders or is built-in, and
you don't know it. So this is another thing to factor in the equation
of things

What is the best MJPEG codec around?

I would have to say, that in my last recent experience w/ MJPEG was with
the one put out by Matrox. Good speed and good quality.

-vhelp 2977

[mpiper]

Vhelp,
Thanks for the information.

As far as your response, here is what I have decided at this point:
Premiere opens any MJPEG file is the codec you have registered as your windows codec (if you install a second, it may or may not replace the first as primary.) Due to this, I only run one version of any codec on my PC.

My work PC has a Matrox rt/x1000 Extreme, so I have access to their software codecs, but the mjpeg settings (on the latest version) focuses more on file size and a magic number between 1 and 100 for quality, with no other adjustments. I have used it, but am not happy with the results. It works great to set up a video with 10s of layers with effects and transitions that render in real time on the matrox hardware, but the software version just doesn't put out the quality at a fast enough speed for my poor little AMD XP2400 without dropping frames.

Right now, I am relatively happy with Morgan, so I will probably purchase it after the 60 day trial.

I already purchased PicVideos, but their codec has a problem with Premiere and interlaced video will not display in the premiere monitor. That was what started this thread. PicVideo has plans to release an update, but their tech support said thay can't promise a date for the update, or if it would be free for previous owners.

As far as Huffyuv, I am not familiar with the format, so haven't investigated it. What is the file size per second of video on it? since it is uncompressed, that should be a rock solid number that I can use to determine if it will fit. The website of the tool also leaves me a little nervous about the quality of the finished video, since it is sparse on graphic examples.

I may try it this weekend.

Laters!!

Mike

[lordsmurf]

HuffYUV is NOT ... repeat NOT... uncompressed. It is another compression algorithm similar to MJPEG in quality and filesize. If anything, I hear more about HuffYUV sync errors as potential side effect (and have seen it a few times myself). I use it, but prefer MJPEG myself, Morgan, quality 19, because it's pretty much a flawless experience.

Or I capture raw AVI, no compression schemes, and just use my 200GB video drive.

[BJ_M]

huffyuv uses huffman tables and lzw compression ... not really the same as mjpeg ... ive used used it on many film projecs at huge resolutions and never had any problems with it -- and the fact it is lossless compression vs. mjpeg is lossy (how much depends on your settings) ..

i DO like a lot of the mjpeg codecs -- in fact I use some custom very expensive ones for some very high high end d-cinema systems - along with also wavelet compression ..

[BJ_M]

mjpeg is also smaller file size

[mpack]

HuffYUV is NOT ... repeat NOT... uncompressed. It is another compression algorithm similar to MJPEG in quality and filesize.

Lordsmurf, I've always been very impressed by your contribution to this site, I often look for your opinion which I treat as being the definitive one before deciding to try a new tool. You almost invariably give good advice on a wide variety of subjects, and I've used some of your guides to get the best results from my ATI AIW capture setup.

But, your comments here and elsewhere regarding Huffyuv are completely wrong! The type of lossless statistical compression done by Huffyuv is totally unlike the lossy compression of something like MJPEG (or for that matter, MPEG, MP2, MP3, AC3 etc).

Does a text file on your PC lose quality when you pack it with WinZIP? Of course not! So why would you expect the quality of another type of data (say, data which represents a video frame) to be affected when you apply a similar kind of compression to it?

It's obvious to me that you have never actually studied compression algorithms: you are basing your comments on a prejudice that compression always involves throwing away detail in order to get a lower bitrate. In fact, lossy compression methods do that (that's why they are called "lossy"), but lossless methods such as Huffman encoding do not.

Lossless compression: guaranteed not to lose information, but the cost of this is that compression is not as good as lossy methods, particularly on noisy sources (because the noise "information" is preserved too).

Lossy compression: compression can be much higher, but is achieved by discarding information. Despite this, images can sometimes look better because some of the discarded information was just noise anyway.

[SatStorm]

Back to the original question: If the source is VHS, picVideo is a wise choice! In case latest versions ain't compatible with Premiere, just use a previous one... You won't see the difference with VHS sources in practice...

[mpiper]

Where could I get a previous one?

I purchased the latest one directly from them, but it is the only one listed.

Mike