Convert H264 4:2:2 ts video to 4:2:0 with no quality loss

[palomino3000]

How I can convert a ts video H264 HD 4:2:2 to same quality but on 4:2:0 format?
thanx!!

[Jamaika]

Conversion will always be lossy. You can only minimize the loss of compression using the same parameters of the film in addition to the chroma sampling 4:2:2.

[newpball]

How I can convert a ts video H264 HD 4:2:2 to same quality but on 4:2:0 format?
thanx!!

You obviously cannot.

But, why do you want to do that?

{ not holding my breath that some idiotic TV station requires this as some 'standard' }

[Cornucopia]

Not just some "idiotic TV station", but 90% of all consumer devices available. Those must be idiotic too. And the people that continue to use them, you must also consider idiotic, right?

Scott

[_Al_]

Sometimes it is just wrapper for that 4:2:2 that is not recognized in players or whatever destination device is. I know if MXF 4:2:2 from Canon XF 100 for example gets re-wrapped into MKV and audio channels are merged into stereo, then WDTV Live can play it. Everything could be done losslessly.
Two channel mxf:

ffmpeg -i video.mxf -c:v copy -an -sn video.m2v
ffmpeg -i video.mxf -map 0:1 -map 0:2 -c:a:0 pcm_s16le -c:a:1 pcm_s16le -filter_complex amerge audio.wav
mkvmerge -o video.mkv video.m2v audio.wav

[palomino3000]

I must convert them for more facility to edit and to play on some devices.
OK, I accept a little loss quality.
What is the best and easy software for convert them with the same param of original?
thanx!

[newpball]

Not just some "idiotic TV station", but 90% of all consumer devices available. Those must be idiotic too. And the people that continue to use them, you must also consider idiotic, right?

I know, I know, not supporting anything else than 4:2:0 is a great feature that only true brilliant people can appreciate.

And no devices are not idiotic, people can be.

Give me one technical reason why rendering firmware or software could not support anything over 4:2:0?

There is no technical reason, it is just a brain-dead decision made by stuffy old engineers.

[jman98]

Not just some "idiotic TV station", but 90% of all consumer devices available. Those must be idiotic too. And the people that continue to use them, you must also consider idiotic, right?

Additionally, I think BluRay format requires 4:2:0.

[_Al_]

as I said, it is a firmware that can simply block playback, so whomever wrote firmware for a device , omitting to troubleshoot mxf caused that delivery container not being played, not actual device or decoding chip, not stuffy old engineers ...

[newpball]

as I said, it is a firmware that can simply block playback, so whomever wrote firmware for a device, blockes that delivery container, not actual device or decoding chip, not stuffy old engineers ...

And the firmware is developed by monkeys with a typewriter?

[_Al_]

firmware is written by somebody who has to follow assignment, whatever he was told to include ... so those people are most likely managers , marketers whoever made a proposition, not old stuffy engineers, it is really getting annoying ...

[newpball]

firmware is written by somebody who has to follow assignment, whatever he was told to include ... so those people are most likely managers , marketers whoever, not old stuffy engineers, it is really getting annoying ...

Ah come on now, yeah sure the managers will tell the engineers to specifically block anything over 4:2:0.

Chances are they think those numbers are lottery numbers.

No, if anyone tells the engineers to block 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 it is the 'senior' engineer.

[_Al_]

Have you ever written a software or something? You write it to keep assignment. You cannot write something that supports everything, in this case every format, container, audio channels, on the planet etc. Chip decodes video and audio, Those chips manage to decode it, but you , as a writer of firmware, that is software, you have to write it, troubleshoot it, tune it up. Every single possibility you have to include, have to have appropriate code, so it would not result in error. They tell you to write it, you do it! They tell you you do not have to, you don't.

[jman98]

Actually the requirement for 4:2:0 could be because of the decoder chip a device uses. Assuming that this is being done out of ignorance or for no good reason at all is not necessarily true.

Ahem. Having a decoder chip that doesn't support anything over 4:2:0 IS a "technical reason" as you asked for, newpball.

[newpball]

I must say I am surprised that people line up here to immediately defend the case that many devices do not support anything over 4:2:0.

The lack of, and more worrisome, the aversion to criticism is notable.

One wonders......

[_Al_]

Nobody defends anything, sure I'd want Santa Claus give me all I want, 4:4:4 on playback, these are simple statesments what it is out there in real World. Those managers up there, they think about profit, percentage, I loose this to gain this ... You have to work with what you got, it is more than enough anyway. If it was one thread of yours, I'd understand anyone can complain about something, sure, but you complain about everything. I kind of feel like talking to my kid right now ...

[usually_quiet]

The OP still needs help.

I must convert them for more facility to edit and to play on some devices.
OK, I accept a little loss quality.
What is the best and easy software for convert them with the same param of original?

jman98, after all the lectures you gave me about fungus boy, I'm surprised that you are not already ignoring newpball.

[newpball]

Nobody defends anything, sure I'd want Santa Claus give me all I want, 4:4:4 on playback, these are simple statesments what it is out there in real World. Those managers up there, they think about profit, percentage, I loose this to gain this ... You have to work with what you got, it is more than enough anyway. If it was one thread of yours, I'd understand anyone can complain about something, sure, but you complain about everything. I kind of feel like talking to my kid right now ...

Truth is that those decisions are not made by managers (unless perhaps it is a promoted old engineer), they are made by senior engineers.

It's likely the "Oh 4:2:0 is good enough for consumers. Let me tell you in the old CRT days I ..........." argument.

Frankly I am surprised no-one has brought it up here already, the "4:2:0 is good enough" argument.

[newpball]

I must convert them for more facility to edit .....

More facility to edit?

Could anyone explain that to me?

And yes 4:4:4 versus 4:2:0 does make a difference:

[Cornucopia]

Nobody defends anything, sure I'd want Santa Claus give me all I want, 4:4:4 on playback, these are simple statesments what it is out there in real World. Those managers up there, they think about profit, percentage, I loose this to gain this ... You have to work with what you got, it is more than enough anyway. If it was one thread of yours, I'd understand anyone can complain about something, sure, but you complain about everything. I kind of feel like talking to my kid right now ...

Truth is that those decisions are not made by managers (unless perhaps it is a promoted old engineer), they are made by senior engineers.

It's likely the "Oh 4:2:0 is good enough for consumers. Let me tell you in the old CRT days I ..........." argument.

Frankly I am surprised no-one has brought it up here already, the "4:2:0 is good enough" argument.

No, the truth is that those senior engineers give their summary of the strengths & weaknesses of each and the compromises of each, and the managers & CEOs say "no, we have to go with that one (4:2:0) for now". Seems to me you don't understand the idea of having to work under constraints (technical, logistical, economic, legal, cultural or otherwise). Adding a smiley face doesn't excuse you from not using your brain.

@usually_quiet, the OP was answered: It isn't possible to go from 4:2:2->4:2:0 with no loss.

However, that shouldn't stop the OP from doing it if it is necessary to get the job done. Getting the job done sometimes entails compromises (this being one of them). And for many uses, 4:2:0 IS good enough! There, I said it. However, fine EDITING & COMPOSITING is NOT one of those uses.

@palomino, what editing process and/or app will you be using? what devices will it be played on? That will help determine both whether it needs to retain 4:2:2 or be converted to 4:2:0, as well as what format/codec/container you need it to be (both before & after editing). Once we know those, it will become clearer which app is the best to do this with...

Scott

[newpball]

@palomino, what editing process and/or app will you be using? what devices will it be played on? That will help determine both whether it needs to retain 4:2:2 or be converted to 4:2:0, as well as what format/codec/container you need it to be (both before & after editing). Once we know those, it will become clearer which app is the best to do this with...

Scott

Good points!

[hello_hello]

I must convert them for more facility to edit .....

More facility to edit?

Could anyone explain that to me?

Can you explain why you took what palomino3000 said and quoted him out of context?

I must convert them for more facility to edit and to play on some devices.!

Fair enough, it might pay to edit first, convert second, but none of that's helped by you interrupting yet another thread with one of your pointless rants.

I must say I am surprised that people line up here to immediately defend the case that many devices do not support anything over 4:2:0.
The lack of, and more worrisome, the aversion to criticism is notable.

Reality is something to which the majority of us a confined, and criticising every device that only supports 4:2:0 individually would still do nothing to answer the OP's question or enable him to keep the 4:2:2 format for device compatibility.

It's likely the "Oh 4:2:0 is good enough for consumers. Let me tell you in the old CRT days I ..........." argument.
Frankly I am surprised no-one has brought it up here already, the "4:2:0 is good enough" argument.

I'm surprised it took you this long to bring it up so you could argue with yourself. Pity none of it helps the OP.

[newpball]

...would still do nothing to answer the OP's question or enable him to keep the 4:2:2 format for device compatibility.

I think we have not yet established that.

We have to wait for the OP to clarify his editing constraints (if any) and target devices (if specifiable).

It also would be helpful if someone could provide a list of all those 90% devices that cannot play 4:2:2

[_Al_]

OK, lets correct it to perhaps 100% then. Not talking about computers now.

Because again, real world scenario. Besides video, there is also audio, in separate channels in MXF, two, four channels etc. So if it does not mess up in video part, it might in audio perhaps and you would hear one channel or none at all etc. As a true manager I should correct myself and say 99.9 % of devices, not 100% to cover my ***

[newpball]

Come to think of it, computers are pretty darn good for showing videos.

[_Al_]

Yes, nowadays they get really cheap even for living room, latest Raspberry Pi 2 B for example , not that I know if it is capable of playing MXF, perhaps yes with Kodi (former XMBC), but maybe it would not get two channels out at the same time etc... those things get small, quiet and cheap.

[hello_hello]

...would still do nothing to answer the OP's question or enable him to keep the 4:2:2 format for device compatibility.

I think we have not yet established that.

We have to wait for the OP to clarify his editing constraints (if any) and target devices (if specifiable).

I must convert them for more facility to edit and to play on some devices.

Which part of "must convert them to play on some devices" are you finding confusing?

It also would be helpful if someone could provide a list of all those 90% devices that cannot play 4:2:2

Are you posting from down the rabbit hole now?

[palomino3000]

I want edit this .ts 4:2:2 video with VIDEOREDO software, that can't accet h264 4:2:2 file!
After edit video, I want it is 4:2:0 because I want play on my tv samsung.

[Cornucopia]

This might be a good start:

for %%a in ("*.*") do ffmpeg -i "%%a" -vcodec libx264 -crf 0 -preset slow -profile:v high -level 4.0 -pix_fmt yuv420p  -acodec copy %%~na.mp4
pause

Scott

[Detmek]

I want edit this .ts 4:2:2 video with VIDEOREDO software, that can't accet h264 4:2:2 file!
After edit video, I want it is 4:2:0 because I want play on my tv samsung.

Use an.y video converter - VidCoder, Simple x264 Launcher, MeGUI, StaxRip, ect. Any of those will convert to YV12 aka 4:2:0 format. Now, if you editing is lossless, like cutting on keyframes you can use settings for final distribution, something like CRF 18, preset slow, tune film or whatever, import that file in VideoReDo (you need TVSuite, as you may know), cut on keyframes and export. If you don't cut on keyframes VideoReDo have a Smart Render option that will re-encode only a part of the video between your cut and next keyframe.
If you need to do some other stuff like changing color, saturation ect then you will need to encode video with low keyint (1 or 2) and very low CRF value (1-5), edit your video and then encode again to final format.
P.S. If VideoReDo can use lossless file as input use what Cornucopia said, encode to lossless format, edit and export to final fomat.

@Cornucopia
Profile High won't give him lossless output with CRF 0. It will reduce CRF to 1. Lossless implies High 4:4:4 profile.